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 Process Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Operations Gemba Walk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots. | 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 there is uncertainty about the real course of a process, the method brings observation to the place where work happens. It combines perception, follow-up questions, and process knowledge so decisions rest on actual workflows instead of assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 30-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-10 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Observation Notes, Improvement Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | ProcessOperationsImprovement | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | LeanObservationProcessOperations |