Complete firstShared decision question
Participants, scope and voting rule are clear before voting.
Otherwise individual ranks are not comparable.
Method guideFacilitation
Nominal Group Technique
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityMedium
Time60-120 min
Participants5-12
FormatWorkshop
MaturityCanonical
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Paper or private digital input areas, a numbered idea list and private ballots.
People / roles
5–9 knowledgeable participants; a neutral facilitator protects turns and independent voting.
Pre-read
Handoff examples, recurring clarification requests and the actual decision mandate.
Time needed
45–75 minutes
Setup
Display the question, prepare private writing areas and announce a 3/2/1-point ballot for three different ideas.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which change would most improve the handoff between support and engineering?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
Nominal Group Technique separates silent idea generation, round-robin recording, clarification and independent ranking. Facilitation keeps these stages distinct so airtime and hierarchy have less influence on evaluation.
Nominal Group Technique
Fictional example
Nominal Group Technique separates silent idea generation, round-robin recording, clarification and independent ranking. Facilitation keeps these stages distinct so airtime and hierarchy have less influence on evaluation.
Question and rule
Which question, participants and ranking rule apply?
Six participants; rank three distinct ideas using 3/2/1 points. Total point budget: 36.
Idea list
Which numbered ideas were fully clarified?
A: reproduction fields; B: daily joint triage; C: rotating liaison; D: handoff checklist.
Anonymous ballots
Which ranks were submitted independently?
P1 A3 B2 C1; P2 A3 D2 B1; P3 B3 A2 D1; P4 D3 A2 C1; P5 A3 C2 B1; P6 B3 D2 A1.
Results
What are the totals and relevant dissenting reasons?
A 14, B 10, D 8, C 4; total 36. Concern about A: mandatory fields must not delay urgent incidents.
Next test
Who tests what, by when, using which indicator?
Jon pilots A for two weeks with an urgent-incident exception; compare clarification rate and time to first handling.
All situations and people are fictional.
- 1
Silent work
Generate independent ideas
Goal
Independent ideas
Inputs for this step
- Shared question
Actions
- Clarify the question and scope. Everyone writes ideas privately for five to ten minutes without discussion.
- Record one idea per note; do not evaluate or align ideas yet.
Output
Independent ideas
Silence protects independent thought.
Quality check
Did everyone have uninterrupted time for individual ideas?
Pitfall
Early verbal suggestions anchor everyone else’s thinking. End discussion and start a fresh silent thinking period.
Timing: 10 minutes
- 2
Round robin
Give contributions equal airtime
Goal
Numbered list
Inputs for this step
- Individual notes
Actions
- Each person states one idea in turn; the facilitator records and numbers it. Passing is allowed.
- Continue without debate until everyone passes; new ideas may be added along the way.
Output
Numbered list
Round robin prevents airtime from determining the list.
Quality check
Were contribution opportunities equal and free of early debate?
Pitfall
A dominant participant expands on or evaluates others’ ideas. Record contributions only and postpone explanations until clarification.
Timing: 15 minutes
- 3
Clarify
Build shared understanding
Goal
Understood options
Inputs for this step
- Numbered contributions
Actions
- Clarify each idea in sequence through questions. Everyone may help explain its meaning.
- Combine truly duplicate ideas only with agreement; preserve differences and objections.
Output
Understood options
Clarification creates understanding, not persuasion.
Quality check
Are meanings clear without pressuring agreement?
Pitfall
Clarification turns into promotion of a favored option. Return to meaning and defer evaluation to private ballots.
Timing: 15 minutes
- 4
Rank
Prioritize independently
Goal
Ranking and next test
Inputs for this step
- Clarified options and voting rule
Actions
- Each participant privately assigns 3, 2 and 1 point to three distinct ideas. Check ballots and total the scores.
- Display totals, ties and dissenting reasons; agree a next validation step.
Output
Ranking and next test
Ranking points express preferences rather than measured impact.
Quality check
Are voting rules, totals and treatment of ties transparent?
Pitfall
The highest score is treated as proof of effectiveness. Record it as a preference and validate the selected change through a pilot.
Timing: 20 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Numbered ideas with anonymous point totals, dissenting reasons and a next validation step.
Versioning / ownership
Retain question, panel composition, voting rule, unnamed individual ballots and totals together.
Tool alternatives
- Private notes
- Shared idea list
- Anonymous ballots
nominal-group-technique-working-template.md
Collect every voice independently and produce a traceable shared priority.
Nominal Group Technique: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Plan the session Time: 45–75 minutes
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Paper or private digital input areas, a numbered idea list and private ballots.
- Roles: 5–9 knowledgeable participants; a neutral facilitator protects turns and independent voting.
- Advance information: Handoff examples, recurring clarification requests and the actual decision mandate.
- Overall time needed: 45–75 minutes
- Setup: Display the question, prepare private writing areas and announce a 3/2/1-point ballot for three different ideas.
Prepare for the work steps
Silent work: Generate independent ideas
- Shared question
Round robin: Give contributions equal airtime
- Individual notes
Clarify: Build shared understanding
- Numbered contributions
Rank: Prioritize independently
- Clarified options and voting rule
Nominal Group Technique
Question and rule
Which question, participants and ranking rule apply?
...
Idea list
Which numbered ideas were fully clarified?
...
Anonymous ballots
Which ranks were submitted independently?
...
Results
What are the totals and relevant dissenting reasons?
...
Next test
Who tests what, by when, using which indicator?
...
Enter your own information; connect open commitments to a next action.
Silent work: Generate independent ideas
Expected artifact: Independent ideas
Silence protects independent thought.
Entry:
...
- Did everyone have uninterrupted time for individual ideas?
Round robin: Give contributions equal airtime
Expected artifact: Numbered list
Round robin prevents airtime from determining the list.
Entry:
...
- Were contribution opportunities equal and free of early debate?
Clarify: Build shared understanding
Expected artifact: Understood options
Clarification creates understanding, not persuasion.
Entry:
...
- Are meanings clear without pressuring agreement?
Rank: Prioritize independently
Expected artifact: Ranking and next test
Ranking points express preferences rather than measured impact.
Entry:
...
- Are voting rules, totals and treatment of ties transparent?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/nominal-group-technique/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.
nominal-group-technique-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example
Question and rule: Six participants; rank three distinct ideas using 3/2/1 points. Total point budget: 36.
Idea list: A: reproduction fields; B: daily joint triage; C: rotating liaison; D: handoff checklist.
Anonymous ballots: P1 A3 B2 C1; P2 A3 D2 B1; P3 B3 A2 D1; P4 D3 A2 C1; P5 A3 C2 B1; P6 B3 D2 A1.
Results: A 14, B 10, D 8, C 4; total 36. Concern about A: mandatory fields must not delay urgent incidents.
Next test: Jon pilots A for two weeks with an urgent-incident exception; compare clarification rate and time to first handling.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Generate independent ideasEarly verbal suggestions anchor everyone else’s thinking.View in phase
- Give contributions equal airtimeA dominant participant expands on or evaluates others’ ideas.View in phase
- Build shared understandingClarification turns into promotion of a favored option.View in phase
- Prioritize independentlyThe highest score is treated as proof of effectiveness.View in phase
Trap
Generate independent ideas
Symptom
Early verbal suggestions anchor everyone else’s thinking.
What to do
End discussion and start a fresh silent thinking period.
Trap
Give contributions equal airtime
Symptom
A dominant participant expands on or evaluates others’ ideas.
What to do
Record contributions only and postpone explanations until clarification.
Trap
Build shared understanding
Symptom
Clarification turns into promotion of a favored option.
What to do
Return to meaning and defer evaluation to private ballots.
Trap
Prioritize independently
Symptom
The highest score is treated as proof of effectiveness.
What to do
Record it as a preference and validate the selected change through a pilot.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Clarify an ambiguous question before idea generation.
Stop coerced voting and rerun it independently.
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.