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 Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 60-120 min | 1-2 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 5-12 | 4-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |