View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation World Café |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 a group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 8-80 | 4-12 | 12-100+ |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Table Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions |
Tags1 shared | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking |