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 a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping
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 several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.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 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
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min45-90 min45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-102-83-124-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsDecision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionExpectation Map, Alignment Notes, AgreementsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods