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 |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 15-45 min | 60–90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1-8 | 2-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |