View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Growth Golden Circle |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In positioning and communication, what an offering actually stands for often becomes blurred. The Golden Circle sharpens a product's inner rationale and connects purpose, approach, and offering into a clear statement. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-9 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Why Statement, Messaging Notes, Positioning Draft | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | MarketingPositioningCommunication | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |