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 |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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. | Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage | 1-3 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 4-12 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |