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 |  Architecture C4 Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | 1-4 h | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | 1-5 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |