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 Team Charter |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a team is starting fresh or working past each other, Team Charter clarifies the shared working basis. It visibly sets out how collaboration, decision paths, and mutual conduct should work day to day. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Team Charter, Working Norms, Role Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCollaboration | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |