View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Working Agreements |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile ROAM Board |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-15 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | ROAM Board, Owner List | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |