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 an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
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.IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.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 a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h1-3 h60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-102-85-304-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsIssue Map, Positions, Argument NotesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
Add more methods