View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |