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 Six Thinking Hats |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationOptionsDecision | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |