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 |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-10 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |