View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 | 8-80 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
