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 Family Tree Analysis |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 series of incidents with a similar pattern, the method arranges individual events as branches of a common origin. It makes visible which conditions keep recurring. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 2-4 h | 45-90 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-6 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Family Tree Diagram, Pattern Notes, Systemic Measures | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | Root causePatternsIncidentSystemic | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |