methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

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

Criterion
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper session grid with two time blocks, three rooms, colored session cards and an open topic pool.
Facilitation
Barcamp
Paper illustration for Open Space Technology.
Facilitation
Open Space Technology
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
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.When many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance.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
LowMediumHighMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 minHalber Tag bis 2 Tage0.5-2 Tage45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-2015-20020-500+8-80
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistSession Board, Session Notes, Community LearningsSession Marketplace, Proceedings, Action TopicsDiscussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions
Tags1 shared
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationLarge groupLearning
FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
Add more methods