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 Dot Voting |  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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 5-15 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-20 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
