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 Team API with its method-specific working model.
Team Design
Team API
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for DACI
Decision Making
DACI
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.In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
Half day initial, dann laufend1-3 h45-90 min30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
Ein Team plus Stakeholder5-303-102-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Team API DocumentConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsDACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log
Tagsno overlap
TeamAlignmentCommunicationService
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment
Add more methods