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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Decision Jam |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 8-80 | 5-30 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop |