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 |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 5-12 | 3-20 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |