View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once. | 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. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |