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 Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30-60 min | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 2-8 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |