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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 5-30 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
