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 Delegation Poker |  Operations 5 Whys |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 15-30 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-6 | 3-10 | 2-5 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations |