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 |  Facilitation Lean Coffee |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | 60-120 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 8-80 | 3-20 | 3-6 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |