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 Six Thinking Hats |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationOptionsDecision | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | ChangeDecisionStrategy |