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 |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  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. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 10-30 min je Item | 5-15 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-8 | 3-20 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |