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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 0.5-2 Tage | 60–90 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 20-500+ | 2-8 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |