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 Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration of many question cards around one challenge
Facilitation
Question Burst
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation 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 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 problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation.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.
Complexitysame
LowLowLowLow
Timedifferent
30–45 min45-90 min15-30 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
1-103-102-83-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea PromptsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsQuestion List, Reframed Challenge, Learning PromptsDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements
Tagsno overlap
FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking
AutonomyRolesTeam
Add more methods