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 |  Agile NoEstimates |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | laufend | 15-45 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 2-12 | 1-8 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |