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 World Café |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min | 5-15 min | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 3-8 | 3-20 | 12-100+ |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Prioritization Canvas, Hypothesis Backlog | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Table Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | ExperimentsPrioritizationDiscoveryHypothesis | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking |