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 |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 5-12 | 8-80 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |