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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  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. | 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60–90 min | 60-120 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 5-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |