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 Dot Voting |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 4-12 | 8-80 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |