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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  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 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 60–90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 2-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |