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 Power Interest Grid |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Alignment 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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 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 | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | 30-60 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | 2-8 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |