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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Business Strategy McKinsey 7S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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. | McKinsey 7S checks whether Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff fit together. Organizational misalignments become visible across multiple levers as a result. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | 7S Assessment, Alignment Gaps, Change Actions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | OrganizationStrategyAlignmentChange |