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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | When a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | 1-8 | 8-80 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | SensemakingDecisionRationale | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue |