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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Innovation Round Robin Brainstorming |  Innovation Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | With unevenly distributed speaking time, the method brings every person into the contribution one after another. It prevents early voices from setting the direction while still producing a shared idea space. This makes participation plannable and the team's diversity visible. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 45-90 min | 20-45 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 8-80 | 4-10 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Idea List, Cluster, Shortlist | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | BrainstormingIdeationFacilitationInclusionCreativity | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |