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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 60–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationOptionsDecision |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
