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 |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | Half day | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |