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 Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Open Space Technology.
Facilitation
Open Space Technology
Paper illustration for World Café.
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 a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order.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
MediumLowHighMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min45-90 min0.5-2 Tage60-180 min
Participantsdifferent
8-803-1020-500+12-100+
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up QuestionsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsSession Marketplace, Proceedings, Action TopicsTable Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions
Tags1 shared
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy
FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking
Add more methods