View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Team Design Team API |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 | Half day initial, dann laufend | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |