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 Dot Voting |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Alignment 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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 30-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 3-20 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |