methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Paper session grid with two time blocks, three rooms, colored session cards and an open topic pool.
Facilitation
Barcamp
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Purposedifferent
When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover.When many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance.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 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
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 minHalber Tag bis 2 Tage5-15 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
8-8015-2003-205-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up QuestionsSession Board, Session Notes, Community LearningsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tags1 shared
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
FacilitationLarge groupLearning
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods