View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 20-40 min pro Story | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AutonomyRolesTeam |