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 for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
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 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 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
LowLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
Half day initial, dann laufend45-90 min1-3 h45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
Ein Team plus Stakeholder3-105-303-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Team API DocumentDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role AgreementsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions
Tagsno overlap
TeamAlignmentCommunicationService
AutonomyRolesTeam
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Add more methods