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 Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration of many question cards around one challenge
Facilitation
Question Burst
Paper illustration for Delegation Poker.
Facilitation
Delegation Poker
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 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 a problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
60-90 min45-90 min15-30 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-123-102-83-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Cognitive Load Profile, Action ListResponsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsQuestion List, Reframed Challenge, Learning PromptsDelegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements
Tagsno overlap
TeamComplexityImprovementDiagnosis
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking
AutonomyRolesTeam
Add more methods