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 |  Delivery MoSCoW |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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 release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | PrioritizationScopeDecision | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |