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 Radar |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |