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 of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
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 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.With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h20-45 min60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-105-301-84-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
Add more methods