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 for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration for Cynefin Workshop.
Decision Making
Cynefin 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h1-4 Wochen60-180 min
Participantsdifferent
3-101-81-64-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryCynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
SensemakingDecisionRationale
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ComplexitySensemakingDecision
Add more methods