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 |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60–90 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-30 | 2-6 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |