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 Open Space Technology |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 0.5-2 Tage | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 20-500+ | 3-12 | 8-80 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | KnowledgeMappingRisk | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |