RunsheetFacilitation

Responsibility Poker

ComplexityLow

Time45-90 min

Participants3-10

FormatWorkshop

MaturityEmerging

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Cards with responsibility levels (for example Does it themselves, Drives it, Advises, Observes, Not involved); list of 8-15 tasks or decisions; whiteboard or Miro board with matrix (tasks x people); timer.

People / roles

One facilitator who explains scale and moderates discussion; three to ten team members whose role relationship should be clarified; one scribe for final responsibility map.

Pre-read

Task list prepared in advance (for example sprint planning, architecture decision, stakeholder update, hiring); scale defined; reason (new team composition, recurring role conflicts, delegation clarity).

Time needed

45-90 min

Setup

Put scale on wall with examples per level. Make task list visible. Distribute cards or digital voting tools. Rule: one card per task and person, reveal simultaneously.

Core question

The one question this method answers

What expectations do team members have for responsibility per task, where do they differ, and what agreement do we make?

Flow

Marker: Phase

Step	Duration	Action	Hint
1Phase 1: Clarify scale and tasks	10-15 min	Facilitator explains scale with examples. Review task list together, clarify misunderstandings. Refine or split tasks if needed.	Vague task titles lead to different interpretations. Sprint planning can mean preparation, moderation or decision. Clarify beforehand.
2Phase 2: Choose individual cards	15-20 min	For each task, every person chooses one card for themselves and one for every other person. Silent phase, no discussion.	Both views (self-assessment and external expectation) are needed. If only self-cards are compared, expectation gaps remain hidden.
3Phase 3: Make differences visible	15-25 min	Reveal cards simultaneously per task. Discuss differences between self-assessment and external expectation. Which tasks have broad spread?	Spread is insight, not conflict. The question is not who is right, but why we see it differently.
4Phase 4: Make agreement	10-20 min	Formulate agreement per task: who is primary responsible (owner), who contributes, who is informed? Convert into RACI or DACI format if needed.	Agreement must be explicit. "We do it together" is not an agreement, but conflict deferral.
5Phase 5: Open questions and cadence	5-10 min	Note tasks where no agreement was reached as open questions. Owner for clarification. Cadence for review, for example after 4 weeks.	Some role questions need lead decision or new information. Mark clearly as open, do not resolve artificially.

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Form

Responsibility Map as matrix (tasks x people) with final responsibility levels plus list of open questions, agreement notes and review date.

Versioning / ownership

One entry per session with date. Repeat after role changes or new team members. Track agreements with date, document conflicts explicitly.

Tool alternatives

Miro with Responsibility Map template
Notion database with task and owner column
Google Sheet as matrix
Confluence page in team space

responsibility-poker-working-template.md

Compact working template for Responsibility Poker with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.

Responsibility Poker Canvas

Context

What is this method used for?

Core question

Which question should be answered at the end?

Input

Which data, observations, or materials are available?

Working area

Area 1:
Area 2:
Area 3:
Relationships / patterns:

Output artifacts

Responsibility Map:
Role Agreements:
Open Questions:

Open questions

Next step

Owner, date, success signal.

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

responsibility-poker-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Responsibility Poker - Activate Team (2026-05-22)

Tasks: sprint planning, architecture decision, hiring interviews, stakeholder updates, on-call shifts, release approval, OKR definition.

Excerpt differences:

Sprint planning: Anna sees herself as Drives it, team sees her two-thirds as Does it themselves. Expectation gap: Anna wants to delegate preparation, team does not expect that.
Architecture decision: Ben Does it themselves, Anna and Lisa Advise, Marcus Observes. Consistent, no spread.
Stakeholder updates: three different self-assessments, nobody sees themselves as primary responsible.

Agreements:

Sprint planning: Anna drives, Ben and Lisa prepare tickets (rotating), Anna decides final.
Stakeholder updates: Anna owns CPO sync, Ben tech sync, monthly shared stance.

Open questions:

On-call: team size too small for rotation; clarify with Engineering Lead by 2026-05-30, Owner: @ben.

Workshop produces map, but after 2 weeks everyone acts as before.

What to do

Binding review date in 4-6 weeks. On recurring conflict, refer to map and discuss again.

Stop criteria

Done signals checkable in under a minute

Team exists only short-term, role clarification is bureaucracy.

Lead or sponsor absent for tasks with hierarchy component.

Acute conflict overrides method, mediation needed.

Workshop under 30 min, five phases cannot be run.

Task list not prepared in advance, session becomes brainstorming.

No willingness to record agreements, workshop remains conversation.

Finished the runsheet?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods