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 Fishbowl Discussion |  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. | 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | 8-80 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |