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 for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for DACI
Decision Making
DACI
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.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 group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Tage45-90 min1-3 h30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
Internes Team3-105-302-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasDACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log
Tagsno overlap
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment
Add more methods