View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Knowledge Modeling Peer Instruction |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | Peer Instruction uses group thinking to clarify difficult terms or concepts faster. The method combines individual reflection with social correction and shared precision. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | 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 | 10-20 min je Frage | 45-90 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 6-50 | 8-80 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Concept Questions, Vote Results, Learning Notes | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | LearningDialogueFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |