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 Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  Product Strategy Impact Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | When a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 10-20 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 4-100+ | 3-8 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Impact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery Options | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |