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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | When a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 0.5-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 | 20-500+ |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AutonomyRolesTeam | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy |