Facilitation Facilitation method

Responsibility Poker

Makes responsibility for concrete work visible and clarifies it through simultaneous choices.

Responsibility Poker uses hidden role cards or equivalent simultaneous choices so participants reveal how they see responsibility. Differences are discussed and recorded in a visible assignment.

Core question

Who owns each concrete result, and where are participation or escalation needed?

Plan Responsibility Poker Method guide

Start comparison

Give feedbackIs this method useful to you?

Participants: 3-10
Time: 60–90 minutes for 6–10 concrete outcomes; review after the first work cycle.

Each step produces a concrete domain result for the complete run.

Paper illustration for Responsibility Poker.

Outcomes
Choose work areas
List concrete activities or outcomes with clear boundaries instead of abstract roles.
Cards
Clarify meanings
Explain cards for ownership, execution, advice, and information.
Reveal
Show views
Choose simultaneously face down; make assignment and uncertainty visible.
Dialogue
Examine differences
Discuss differences using examples, dependencies, and decision scope.
Assignment
Record responsibility
Document the current assignment, gaps, and review date.

Test assignments in real handoffs and vote privately again when mandate, team, or outcome changes.

A good fit when

Use it when a team needs to resolve overlaps or gaps around concrete work results.

Ideal for

Role Clarity
Team Alignment
Delegation Conversations

Not good for

Formal org-chart decisions
Conflicts without moderation

Outputs

Published responsibility matrix
Responsibility matrix with outcome, accountable role, executing roles, contributing roles, unresolved mandate questions, and review date.

Responsibility matrix

Fictional example

Fictional example for one concrete work case.

Responsibility matrix
Case	Outcome	Accountability	Execution	Consultation and information
Example caseWho owns each concrete result, and where are participation or escalation needed?	Release approval	Product Owner	Engineering Lead runs the checklist	Security is consulted; Support is informed

1. Outcome
Example case
Release approval
2. Accountability
Example case
Product Owner
3. Execution
Example case
Engineering Lead runs the checklist
4. Consultation and information
Example case
Security is consulted; Support is informed

The example is fictional and must be adapted to mandate and context.

Reference source · original teaching example

First step

List concrete activities or results, involved roles, and the decision depth to clarify.

Open the method guide

Good to do first

Facilitation

Team Charter

Supplies the mandate and outcomes whose responsibility gets clarified.

Where to go next?

Facilitation

Delegation Poker

Also clarifies the appropriate level of delegation for open gaps.

Agile

Working Agreements

Anchors the published responsibility matrix as a binding team rule.

Deep dive

Purpose

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.

How it works

For a task or role, the group compares how much responsibility individual people should take on and calibrates this perception together. This reduces implicit expectation errors and helps spot overlapping responsibilities early.

In detail

Responsibility Poker works because differing expectations about roles and responsibilities become visible before they collide in everyday work. It is notably useful when task areas are ambiguous and those involved read their responsibility differently. Success depends on the reasoning behind the cards, on edge cases, and on organizational consequences, so the discussion produces genuine role clarity.

Facilitation

Choose concrete tasks or decisions that already create friction in daily work, and explain the meaning of the cards clearly. The important moment comes when the distributions differ strongly; that is exactly where the real need for clarification lies. Close with visible responsibility decisions and note where further alignment is needed outside the session.

The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.

Open method guide

Your perspective

Does this method help with your work?

Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.

Sources and topics

Topics

Roles Responsibility Team Facilitation

Sources

Reference source · original teaching exampleatlassian.comAtlassian Team Playbook; describes a workshop where team members compare their own and each other's role expectations.

Artifact templates

Responsibility Poker: WorksheetPlan the question, inputs, complete run, and review with clear ownership.

markdown

responsibility-poker-working-template.md

Plan the question, inputs, complete run, and review with clear ownership.

Responsibility Poker: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Complete run Time: 60–90 minutes for 6–10 concrete outcomes; review after the first work cycle.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: List of concrete outcomes or activities, cards for outcome ownership, execution, consultation, and information, matrix, and timer.
Roles: Facilitator · all affected roles · sponsor or decider for unresolved mandates · documentation owner
Advance information: Select 6–10 recurring outcomes and describe scope with a real example. Invite affected roles, not only available individuals.
Overall time needed: 60–90 minutes for 6–10 concrete outcomes; review after the first work cycle.
Setup: Clarify card meanings with one example. Vote privately for each outcome and discuss only after simultaneous reveal.

Prepare for the work steps

Outcomes: Choose work areas

Select 6–10 recurring outcomes and describe scope with a real example. Invite affected roles, not only available individuals.

Cards: Clarify meanings

List of concrete outcomes

Reveal: Show views

Shared card meanings

Dialogue: Examine differences

Independent responsibility views

Assignment: Record responsibility

Resolved differences

Responsibility matrix

Case	Outcome	Accountability	Execution	Consultation and information
Example case

Example case: Who owns each concrete result, and where are participation or escalation needed?

Use one specifically bounded case per row.

Reference source · original teaching example

Outcomes: Choose work areas

Expected artifact: List of concrete outcomes

List of concrete outcomes

Entry:

...

Is each item a concrete outcome or bounded activity?

Cards: Clarify meanings

Expected artifact: Shared card meanings

Shared card meanings

Entry:

...

Does everyone distinguish outcome ownership, execution, consultation, and information in the same way?

Reveal: Show views

Expected artifact: Independent responsibility views

Independent responsibility views

Entry:

...

Did everyone choose independently before status or hierarchy shaped the discussion?

Dialogue: Examine differences

Expected artifact: Resolved differences

Resolved differences

Entry:

...

Were the widest differences tested against a real handoff or decision case?

Assignment: Record responsibility

Expected artifact: Published responsibility matrix

Published responsibility matrix

Entry:

...

Does each outcome have one clear accountable role plus visible executing and contributing roles?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/responsibility-poker/run-sheet

Alternatives and neighbors

Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.

All methods

Paper illustration of an activity-role table with clear RACI assignments and one highlighted accountable role per activity.

Operations

RACI Matrix

Instead of Responsibility Poker, choose RACI Matrix when you want to clearly clarify responsibilities along accountable, executing, and informed roles.