View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation How Might We |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 5-15 min | 45-90 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-20 | 8-80 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |