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 of Team Cognitive Load Assessment with its method-specific working model.
Team Design
Team Cognitive Load Assessment
Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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 team juggles too many domains, systems, or handoffs, it measures mental overload as an organizational problem. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a cognitive-load profile and action list.When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min60-90 min45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-103-123-124-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsCognitive Load Profile, Action ListExpectation Map, Alignment Notes, AgreementsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
AutonomyRolesTeam
TeamComplexityImprovementDiagnosis
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods