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 Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | 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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | 1-2 h | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | 4-12 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |