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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-12 | 3-20 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ChangeDecisionStrategy | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |