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 Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 5-15 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-20 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ChangeDecisionStrategy |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
