View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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 decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-10 | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan |
Tagsno overlap | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AutonomyRolesTeam | KnowledgeMappingRisk |