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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-8 | 5-30 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | SensemakingDecisionRationale | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |