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 for Decision Framing Workshop.
Decision Making
Decision Framing Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 decision is poorly framed, even good answers deliver little value. A Decision Framing Workshop sharpens the problem, goal, and boundaries before the actual weighing begins.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min60-120 min45-90 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-104-103-105-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsDecision Frame, Decision Question, Criteria List, Evidence PlanResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
AutonomyRolesTeam
Decision framingAlignmentCriteriaOptions
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods