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 MoSCoW |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | 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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScopeDecision | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |