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 Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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.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.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h45-90 min20-45 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
5-303-101-84-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods