In one minute
Generate ideas silently, clarify them in turn and rank them before a group decision.
Participants write independently, share one idea at a time in a round robin, clarify without lobbying, and rank options privately. The ranking informs a legitimate decision; it does not itself confer authority or consensus.
The problem it addresses
Status and verbal confidence dominate a meeting, hiding minority options and genuine disagreement.
A research cooperative must allocate scarce lab time. Famous senior members dominate open discussion and junior safety concerns do not reach the agenda.
When to use it
- Use Nominal Group Technique when status and verbal confidence dominate a meeting, hiding minority options and genuine disagreement.
- The team can examine: One specific question, a small diverse group, accessible participation format, neutral facilitator and decision rule.
- A relevant situation is: A research cooperative must allocate scarce lab time. Famous senior members dominate open discussion and junior safety concerns do not reach the agenda.
When not to use it
Do not use it to replace evidence, accountable judgement or affected people's participation.
Calling a ranked list consensus or allowing the facilitator to reword minority ideas away.
Inputs required
One specific question, a small diverse group, accessible participation format, neutral facilitator and decision rule.
Step-by-step process
1. Bound the decision and name its owner.
Write the scope, decision owner and people who can veto or revise the result before starting the workshop.
2. Collect the necessary evidence and affected perspectives.
Collect and date the necessary evidence: One specific question, a small diverse group, accessible participation format, neutral facilitator and decision rule.
3. Write a single question and explain who will use the ranking.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Write a single question and explain who will use the ranking.
4. Give everyone quiet time to generate ideas independently.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Give everyone quiet time to generate ideas independently.
5. Collect one idea per person per round until the list is complete.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Collect one idea per person per round until the list is complete.
6. Clarify meaning and merge duplicates only with participants' agreement.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Clarify meaning and merge duplicates only with participants' agreement.
7. Rank privately, display the spread and hand the result to the decision owner.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Rank privately, display the spread and hand the result to the decision owner.
8. Record the output, next test and review trigger.
Store the artifact with its evidence links, owner, bounded next test and date or trigger for review.
AI automation lens
AI may sort authorised notes and expose missing evidence. It must not invent observations, silently decide for affected people or present a generated map as validated.
Visual model
Text alternative: Write a single question and explain who will use the ranking; Give everyone quiet time to generate ideas independently; Collect one idea per person per round until the list is complete; Clarify meaning and merge duplicates only with participants' agreement; Rank privately, display the spread and hand the result to the decision owner.
Interactive example
Scenario: A research cooperative must allocate scarce lab time. Famous senior members dominate open discussion and junior safety concerns do not reach the agenda.
Worked answer: Run anonymous independent idea generation and private ranking, publish the score spread and require the allocation owner to address safety objections explicitly.
Facilitation notes
Record disagreements before synthesising; ask whose evidence is missing; state who may revise the result.
Expected output
- An inspectable decision artifact, its assumptions and evidence, a responsible owner, a bounded next test and a review date.
- Rank privately, display the spread and hand the result to the decision owner.
- A named owner, test and review date.
Common mistakes
Calling a ranked list consensus or allowing the facilitator to reword minority ideas away.
Quality checklist
- The decision and system boundary are explicit.
- Affected people and alternative accounts are included.
- Each important claim has a source or is marked as an assumption.
- An owner, safeguard and disconfirming signal are named.
Template
Knowledge check
Question: What mistake would undermine this method in the scenario?
Answer: Calling a ranked list consensus or allowing the facilitator to reword minority ideas away.
Related tools
References
- Nominal Group Technique — method source (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Further practice reference (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-10-09.
Method profile
The method structures a discussion and a test; it does not establish causal proof or guarantee success.