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 an activity-role table with clear RACI assignments and one highlighted accountable role per activity.
Operations
RACI Matrix
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
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.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.With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Tage45-90 min45-90 min20-45 min
Participantsdifferent
Internes Team3-102-81-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsRACI Matrix, Responsibility Map, Decision NotesOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes
Tagsno overlap
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
RolesResponsibilityGovernanceOperations
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
Add more methods