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 1-2-4-All |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Innovation Round Robin Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | With unevenly distributed speaking time, the method brings every person into the contribution one after another. It prevents early voices from setting the direction while still producing a shared idea space. This makes participation plannable and the team's diversity visible. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 10-20 min | 30–60 min per interview | 5-15 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-100+ | 1 participant per interview | 3-20 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Idea List, Cluster, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | BrainstormingIdeationFacilitationInclusionCreativity |