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 RAID Log |  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. | 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. | 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 | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |