View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 60-120 min | 5-15 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-12 | 3-20 | 3-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange |