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 Spotify Model Mapping with its method-specific working model.
Team Design
Spotify Model Mapping
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 a team landscape has grown without clear grouping, it maps roles and relationships onto the Spotify model. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Spotify model map and action list.With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min90-180 min20-45 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-105-151-85-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsSpotify Model Map, Action ListOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
TeamOrganizationAlignmentDiagnosis
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods