View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Business Strategy McKinsey 7S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | McKinsey 7S checks whether Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff fit together. Organizational misalignments become visible across multiple levers as a result. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | 7S Assessment, Alignment Gaps, Change Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | OrganizationStrategyAlignmentChange |