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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | 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 | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 10-20 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-10 | 4-100+ | 3-20 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |