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 |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation 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. | When several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | Half day | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |