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 Mind Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | 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. | 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 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |