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 for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
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 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 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 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
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h1-2 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-105-304-123-10
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
AutonomyRolesTeam
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods