View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Context Canvas |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an environment of users, systems, and constraints is hard to grasp, it puts the context compactly on the table. It creates a clear reading of influence, boundary, and dependency. | 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. | When a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 0.5-2 Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-20 | 20-500+ | 8-80 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Context canvas, Open questions, Shared context notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ContextFramingRequirementsCanvas | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |