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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60–90 min | 1-3 h | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-30 | 1-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |