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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|
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 controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60–90 min | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 8-80 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tags1 shared | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
