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 |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  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. | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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 | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 20-60 min | 30-60 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 1 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |