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