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 Cognitive Load Assessment with its method-specific working model.
Team Design
Team Cognitive Load Assessment
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping
Purposedifferent
When a team juggles too many domains, systems, or handoffs, it measures mental overload as an organizational problem. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a cognitive-load profile and action list.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.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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
60-90 min1-2 h45-90 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-124-123-103-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Cognitive Load Profile, Action ListAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsExpectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements
Tagsno overlap
TeamComplexityImprovementDiagnosis
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
Add more methods