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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 30-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 4-12 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |