View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 5-30 | 8-80 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |