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 of Spotify Model Mapping with its method-specific working model.
Team Design
Spotify Model Mapping
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
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.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 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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
90-180 min1-3 h45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
5-155-303-104-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Spotify Model Map, Action ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
TeamOrganizationAlignmentDiagnosis
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods