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 |  Decision Making Red Teaming |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For strategic decisions with high reach, agreement and gut feeling are often not enough. Red teaming brings deliberate opposition into the situation and tests where a plan breaks under real counterarguments. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 1-4 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 | 3-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Challenge Findings, Risk Register, Mitigation Plan | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RiskDecisionSensemaking | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |