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 |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 5-30 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |