View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 8-80 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
