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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | 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. | Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 2-4 h | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 3-8 | 5-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |