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 |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |