View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | FacilitationOptionsDecision | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |