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 Fishbowl Discussion |  Product Discovery Hypothesis Prioritization Canvas |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  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 hypotheses compete for attention, it brings order to their learning sequence and importance. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a prioritization canvas and a hypothesis backlog. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min | 5-15 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 3-8 | 3-20 | 5-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Prioritization Canvas, Hypothesis Backlog | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | ExperimentsPrioritizationDiscoveryHypothesis | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |