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 Stakeholder Salience Model |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Alignment 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 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 60-90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-6 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |