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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Expectation 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 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60–90 min | 60-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-8 | 3-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |