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 Responsibility Poker |  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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
