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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min5-15 min1-2 h1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-103-204-125-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tags1 shared
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods