View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Cost of Delay |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-6 | 5-30 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |