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 a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Purposedifferent
When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min20-45 min1-3 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
2-81-85-303-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods