View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation World Café |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-180 min | 5-15 min | 30-60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 12-100+ | 3-20 | 2-8 | 8-80 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Table Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tags1 shared | FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |