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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |