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 Shape Up |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 1-2 h | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 4-12 | 1-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ForecastingFlowDelivery | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |