View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 5-15 min | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-20 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |