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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Facilitation World Café |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 3-10 | 3-10 | 12-100+ |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Table Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AutonomyRolesTeam | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking |