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 Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation 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.In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min45-90 min1-2 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-103-124-123-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk NotesAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsExpectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
ChangeDecisionStrategy
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
Add more methods