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 Three-Point Estimation |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 10-30 min je Item | 60-120 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1-8 | 5-12 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | EstimationUncertaintyRisk |