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 |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |