View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 3-20 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |