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
How Might We
Innovation
How Might We
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Purposedifferent
With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction.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 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.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
30–45 min45-90 min1-2 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
1-103-104-123-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea PromptsDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions
AutonomyRolesTeam
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods