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 |  Delivery Cost of Delay |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. | 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 workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 90-180 min | 60–90 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 3-8 | 2-8 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |