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 Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 30-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 4-12 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |