Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Dot Voting ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Decision Jam Nominal Group Technique

Criterion	Facilitation Dot Voting	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Facilitation Decision Jam	Facilitation Nominal Group Technique
Purposedifferent	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.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.	When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	5-15 min	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	60-90 min	60-120 min
Participantsdifferent	3-20	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	4-10	5-12
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment	Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap	FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop	FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion

Add more methods