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 |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 15-45 min | 60-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 1-8 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |