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 Problem Framing Workshop |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. | 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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 60–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |