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 Dot Voting |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 5-15 min | 60–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 3-20 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |