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 Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 60-120 min | 60–90 min | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 5-12 | 2-8 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |