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 |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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. | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 5-30 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |