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 Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 5-30 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |