Complete firstComparable options
Everyone sees the same concise, understandable description of each option.
Unclear or unevenly detailed entries direct votes toward wording quality rather than preference.
Method guideFacilitation
Dot Voting
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityLow
Time5-15 min
Participants3-20
FormatWorkshop
MaturityCanonical
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstClear voting purpose
The decision owner knows whether the result is a shortlist, a conversation starter, or an initial selection.
Unclear authority can make a quick signal look like a binding decision.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Options on a board or readable cards, dots or equivalent digital votes, and a visible voting limit.
People / roles
Facilitation protects independent votes. Decision owners explain beforehand how the signal will be used. Subject experts research material assumptions before voting.
Pre-read
Gather option descriptions, the question to be answered, and necessary evidence. For consequential options, give participants time to check their area of expertise.
Time needed
5–15 minutes for prepared options; research, debate, and a formal decision take additional time.
Setup
Give everyone the same number of dots. A reasonable starting point is roughly one quarter of the options, adapted to the purpose and option count. Explain whether people may place several dots on one option and whether votes represent criteria or general preference. Votes are cast silently; discussion starts afterward.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which options merit further examination based on the group's independent preferences?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
Dot voting makes relative preferences in a group visible through an equal voting budget used independently by participants. The distribution supports a shortlist and does not establish objective value or agreement.
Vote and result
Fictional teaching example
Fictional vote distribution from a prepared group choice.
| Option | Option | Dots | Interpretation and next check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Option 1Which option received votes, and what should be checked next? | Clearer reservation confirmation | 5 dots | Shortlisted. Check comprehension and process before implementation. |
| Option 2Which option received votes, and what should be checked next? | Reliable pickup time slots | 4 dots | Shortlisted. Check availability and operating effort. |
| Option 3Which option received votes, and what should be checked next? | Reminder before return | 2 dots | Deferred. The reason for the preference or rejection is unknown. |
| Option 4Which option received votes, and what should be checked next? | Short repair video | 1 dot | Deferred. This says nothing about objective value. |
1. Option
- Option 1
- Clearer reservation confirmation
- Option 2
- Reliable pickup time slots
- Option 3
- Reminder before return
- Option 4
- Short repair video
2. Dots
- Option 1
- 5 dots
- Option 2
- 4 dots
- Option 3
- 2 dots
- Option 4
- 1 dot
3. Interpretation and next check
- Option 1
- Shortlisted. Check comprehension and process before implementation.
- Option 2
- Shortlisted. Check availability and operating effort.
- Option 3
- Deferred. The reason for the preference or rejection is unknown.
- Option 4
- Deferred. This says nothing about objective value.
Four fictional participants cast three dots each. The twelve dots are preference signals; they do not count distinct people or consensus. The shortlist needs further examination.
- 1
Scope
Set the question and purpose
Goal
The group knows which decision the vote is preparing.
Inputs for this step
- Selection question
Actions
- Name the decision owner and the next examination
Output
Bounded vote
A shortlist is not automatically the decision.
Quality check
Will the result be used as a signal or a decision?
Pitfall
The task list mixes goals or periods. Clarify the decision path before starting.
Timing: 2 minutes
- 2
Options
Make options comparable
Goal
Everyone votes on the same option set.
Inputs for this step
- Options and decision context
Actions
- Clarify questions
- provide key evidence in advance
- hold back options that are not ready for a vote.
Output
Comparable option list
Dot Voting cannot assess quality that is not visible.
Quality check
Are the options described at similar levels of detail?
Pitfall
Options differ in clarity or level of detail. Align the wording and mark uncertainty.
Timing: 3 minutes
- 3
Silent vote
Cast independent votes
Goal
Each person can show a preference without seeing earlier votes.
Inputs for this step
- Equal vote budget, dots, or digital board
Actions
- Display the voting budget
- collect votes silently
- use private digital submission when useful.
Output
Submitted votes
Equal vote counts prevent unequal voting power, not unequal evidence.
Quality check
Other votes are visible before submission.
Pitfall
Other votes influence submissions. Cover the board or use private submission.
Timing: 3 minutes
- 4
Read the pattern
Interpret the distribution together
Goal
The group reads the result as a preference pattern with open questions.
Inputs for this step
- Completed vote
Actions
- Show the result
- discuss the distribution and outliers
- do not translate dots into a count of people.
Output
Prioritized shortlist and open questions
Dots can cluster on a few options without proving agreement.
Quality check
The highest count is treated as consensus.
Pitfall
The highest count is interpreted as consensus. Record the result separately from remaining concerns.
Timing: 4 minutes
- 5
Follow-up
Agree on the next examination
Goal
The vote leads to a named next step.
Inputs for this step
- Prioritized pattern, evidence gaps, decision authority
Actions
- Set the shortlist
- identify needed criteria review
- record an owner and review date.
Output
Clear follow-up step
Voting alone does not assess feasibility, risk, or obligations.
Quality check
Dots stay on the board without follow-up.
Pitfall
The voting signal has no follow-up. Assign an owner and date for the next decision step.
Timing: 3 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Dated voting summary with question, options, voting rule, result, caveats, and the next decision step.
Versioning / ownership
Save the question, option wording, rule, vote count, and date together. For a second round, record the narrowed options and why they were selected.
Tool alternatives
- Physical dots or pen marks on cards
- Digital whiteboard with private voting
- Short anonymous poll when the distribution should not be visible beforehand
workshop-agenda-markdown.md
Compact agenda template for method sequences with timebox, purpose, and output.
Workshop Agenda
Goal: ... Participants: ... Duration: ...
| Time | Method | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 00:00 | Check-in | Set focus | Shared start |
| 00:10 | How Might We | Ideation questions | HMW list |
| 00:35 | Brainwriting | Generate ideas | Idea pool |
| 01:10 | Dot Voting | Prepare selection | Prioritized ideas |
| 01:30 | Storyboarding | Make the concept tangible | Storyboard |
Close-out
Decision, owner, next test.
dot-voting-working-template.md
Plan the question, comparable options, equal voting budget, and how the result will feed into a decision.
Dot Voting: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Narrow a group of options Time: 5–15 minutes with a prepared board; follow-up discussion as needed
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Options on a board or readable cards, dots or equivalent digital votes, and a visible voting limit.
- Roles: Facilitation protects independent votes. Decision owners explain beforehand how the signal will be used. Subject experts research material assumptions before voting.
- Advance information: Gather option descriptions, the question to be answered, and necessary evidence. For consequential options, give participants time to check their area of expertise.
- Overall time needed: 5–15 minutes for prepared options; research, debate, and a formal decision take additional time.
- Setup: Give everyone the same number of dots. A reasonable starting point is roughly one quarter of the options, adapted to the purpose and option count. Explain whether people may place several dots on one option and whether votes represent criteria or general preference. Votes are cast silently; discussion starts afterward.
Prepare for the work steps
Scope: Set the question and purpose
- Selection question
Options: Make options comparable
- Options and decision context
Silent vote: Cast independent votes
- Equal vote budget, dots, or digital board
Read the pattern: Interpret the distribution together
- Completed vote
Follow-up: Agree on the next examination
- Prioritized pattern, evidence gaps, decision authority
Vote and result
| Option | Option | Dots | Observation or next check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Option 1 | |||
| Option 2 | |||
| Option 3 | |||
| Option 4 |
- Option 1: Which option received votes, and what should be checked next?
- Option 2: Which option received votes, and what should be checked next?
- Option 3: Which option received votes, and what should be checked next?
- Option 4: Which option received votes, and what should be checked next?
Blank worksheet: record the question, evenly described options, voting budget, and independent submission. Add votes and interpretation only after voting.
Scope: Set the question and purpose
Expected artifact: Bounded vote
A shortlist is not automatically the decision.
Entry:
...
- Will the result be used as a signal or a decision?
Options: Make options comparable
Expected artifact: Comparable option list
Dot Voting cannot assess quality that is not visible.
Entry:
...
- Are the options described at similar levels of detail?
Silent vote: Cast independent votes
Expected artifact: Submitted votes
Equal vote counts prevent unequal voting power, not unequal evidence.
Entry:
...
- Other votes are visible before submission.
Read the pattern: Interpret the distribution together
Expected artifact: Prioritized shortlist and open questions
Dots can cluster on a few options without proving agreement.
Entry:
...
- The highest count is treated as consensus.
Follow-up: Agree on the next examination
Expected artifact: Clear follow-up step
Voting alone does not assess feasibility, risk, or obligations.
Entry:
...
- Dots stay on the board without follow-up.
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/dot-voting/run-sheet
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.
dot-voting-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional teaching example: feedback for a tool-lending pilot
All details and votes are invented. Four team members choose from four similarly described improvements. Each receives three dots; placing several dots on one option is allowed. That makes twelve dots in total.
| Option | Dots |
|---|---|
| Clearer reservation confirmation | 5 |
| Reliable pickup time slots | 4 |
| Reminder before return | 2 |
| Short repair video | 1 |
The confirmation and pickup slots form the shortlist. The group next checks what observations and implementation questions sit behind the votes. Five dots do not mean five people or consensus. Before implementation, the decision owner checks safety, effort, and dependencies.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Set the question and purposeThe task list mixes goals or periods.View in phase
- Make options comparableOptions differ in clarity or level of detail.View in phase
- Cast independent votesOther votes influence submissions.View in phase
- Interpret the distribution togetherThe highest count is interpreted as consensus.View in phase
- Agree on the next examinationThe voting signal has no follow-up.View in phase
Trap
Set the question and purpose
Symptom
The task list mixes goals or periods.
What to do
Clarify the decision path before starting.
Trap
Make options comparable
Symptom
Options differ in clarity or level of detail.
What to do
Align the wording and mark uncertainty.
Trap
Cast independent votes
Symptom
Other votes influence submissions.
What to do
Cover the board or use private submission.
Trap
Interpret the distribution together
Symptom
The highest count is interpreted as consensus.
What to do
Record the result separately from remaining concerns.
Trap
Agree on the next examination
Symptom
The voting signal has no follow-up.
What to do
Assign an owner and date for the next decision step.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Options are unclear or incomparable: align the descriptions first.
Voters lack key technical or user evidence: do the necessary research before voting.
A vote is meant to replace a legal, safety, or budget decision: use the responsible decision process and its criteria.
The result is close or polarized: discuss the preferences and choose another decision method if needed.
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.