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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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 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 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. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-2 h | 60-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 4-12 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |