View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 5-15 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-20 | 2-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |