View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Working Agreements |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 5-15 min | 45-90 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 | 3-10 | 5-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |