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
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for DACI
Decision Making
DACI
Purposedifferent
For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.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 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.In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
30-90 min45-90 min1-3 h30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
1-63-105-302-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasDACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log
Tagsno overlap
DecisionTreeOptions
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment
Add more methods