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 Question Burst |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  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 problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation. | 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 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 15-30 min | 5-15 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 2-8 | 3-20 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Question List, Reframed Challenge, Learning Prompts | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |