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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Operations Accountability Ladder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 45–90 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 5-30 | 3-10 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam |