View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Team Design Team API |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 5-30 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
