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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights 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 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 3-12 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |