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 of two user profile cards with a goal, behavior evidence, and an open research question.
UX Research
Personas
Paper illustration of an activity-role table with clear RACI assignments and one highlighted accountable role per activity.
Operations
RACI Matrix
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Purposedifferent
When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions.With unclear responsibilities across several roles or areas, the method creates unambiguous accountability logic. It reduces friction because decision, execution, contribution, and information become separately visible.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Tage45-90 min45-90 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
Internes Team2-83-103-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesRACI Matrix, Responsibility Map, Decision NotesResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements
Tagsno overlap
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
RolesResponsibilityGovernanceOperations
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
AutonomyRolesTeam
Add more methods