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
How Might We
Innovation
How Might We
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
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Purposedifferent
With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
30–45 minHalber Tag bis 2 Tage5-15 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
1-1015-2003-208-80
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea PromptsSession Board, Session Notes, Community LearningsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistDiscussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions
Tagsno overlap
FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions
FacilitationLarge groupLearning
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
Add more methods