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 Decision Framing Workshop.
Decision Making
Decision Framing Workshop
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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 a decision is poorly framed, even good answers deliver little value. A Decision Framing Workshop sharpens the problem, goal, and boundaries before the actual weighing begins.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h60-120 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-105-304-104-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasDecision Frame, Decision Question, Criteria List, Evidence PlanAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Decision framingAlignmentCriteriaOptions
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods