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 Dot Voting |  Knowledge Modeling Competency Questions |  Delivery MoSCoW |  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. | Competency Questions translate a domain model into concrete questions that it must be able to answer. The method keeps the model's scope clean and prevents pretty but useless structures. | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | 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 | 30-90 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Competency Question Set, Required Concepts, Test Queries, Coverage Matrix | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | OntologyKnowledge graphScopeRequirementsSemantic | PrioritizationScopeDecision | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |