methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration for Problem Framing Workshop.
Facilitation
Problem Framing Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
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 a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other.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
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h20-45 min60-120 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
5-301-84-103-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesProblem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis QuestionsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods