View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | 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 topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 5-15 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 | 4-12 | 5-30 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationOptionsDecision | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |