View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-20 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |