View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-10 | 5-30 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
