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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 60–90 min | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-8 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Why Statement, Messaging Notes, Positioning Draft | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | MarketingPositioningCommunication | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |