methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of many question cards around one challenge
Facilitation
Question Burst
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
How Might We
Innovation
How Might We
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
When a problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation.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.With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction.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
LowMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
15-30 min60-120 min30–45 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
2-85-121-103-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Question List, Reframed Challenge, Learning PromptsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityHMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea PromptsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods