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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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 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 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 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60–90 min | 1-3 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 2-8 | 5-30 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |