View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 10-30 min je Item | 2-4 h | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-8 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |