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 Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
