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 Consensus Workshop |  Operations Accountability Ladder |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 20-45 min | 45–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 1-8 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |