View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Working Agreements |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
