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 Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 h | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 4-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |