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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60–90 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |