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 a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
Paper illustration of an activity-role table with clear RACI assignments and one highlighted accountable role per activity.
Operations
RACI Matrix
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility 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.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 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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h45-90 min45-90 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-122-83-103-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsRACI Matrix, Responsibility Map, Decision NotesDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
RolesResponsibilityGovernanceOperations
AutonomyRolesTeam
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods