View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Contradiction Analysis |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a system should improve while another measure suffers as a result, the method makes the underlying conflict precisely formulable. It separates the desired effect from its side effect. This makes solutions possible that address the contradiction deliberately instead of half-heartedly. | When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Contradiction Statement, Abstraction Notes, Solution Principles, Concept Ideas | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ContradictionsInnovationProblem solving | FacilitationOptionsDecision | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |