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 Expectation Mapping |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |