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 Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation World Café |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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. | When a group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-90 min | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 5-30 | 3-6 | 12-100+ |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Table Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking |