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 two user profile cards with a goal, behavior evidence, and an open research question.
UX Research
Personas
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for 3-Circle Venn Diagram
Facilitation
3-Circle Venn Diagram
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions.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 three perspectives matter at the same time, a Three-Circle Venn Diagram shows the overlaps and remainders precisely. It makes visible where shared effect arises and where only a partial perspective applies.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 Tage1-3 h15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-10Internes Team5-302-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsPersona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasVenn Diagram, Overlap Notes, Differentiators
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
ComparisonFacilitationAlignment
Add more methods