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 Six Thinking Hats |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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 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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 | 4-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | FacilitationOptionsDecision | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |