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 Fault Tree Analysis.
Operations
Fault Tree Analysis
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
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.For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage.With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.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
LowHighLowLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min2-6 h20-45 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-103-81-83-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsFault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control ActionsOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
AutonomyRolesTeam
RiskRoot causeSafety
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods