View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Barcamp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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 many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-60 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 45-90 min | Halber Tag bis 2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 3-10 | 15-200 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Session Board, Session Notes, Community Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationLarge groupLearning |