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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 0.5-2 Tage | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 8-80 | 20-500+ | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tags1 shared | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |