View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Barcamp |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance. | 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 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 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 | Halber Tag bis 2 Tage | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 15-200 | 4-12 | 8-80 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Session Board, Session Notes, Community Learnings | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationLarge groupLearning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |