View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |