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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tags1 shared | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |