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 |  Delivery Shape Up |  Delivery Communication Plan |  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. | 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. | 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 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 | Low |
Timedifferent | 60–90 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |