View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 5-30 | 8-80 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tags1 shared | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |