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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60–90 min | 2-4 h | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-8 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |