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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Expectation 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-10 | 3-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |