EvalCompassEvalCompass
Participatory & qualitative approachesGroup agreementPrioritiesIdea generationStructured discussionParticipatory

Nominal Group Technique

Nominal Group Technique
Also known as: NGT、Nominal group method

Organizes group priorities through individual idea generation, round-robin sharing, clarification and individual ranking. Reduces influence from louder voices. [1]

NGT implementation worksheet for facilitators — openReferences and checked sections
Difficulty
Introductory
Cost
Low
Duration
Illustrative estimate, adjusted to scale and staffing: 1–3 hours for 1 group session
Content updated: 2026-10-07Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples

How it works at a glance

Participants first generate ideas independently and share them in turn. After recording all ideas, discuss meaning and importance, then organize priorities through individual voting. [1]

Focus on one question and separate idea generation from assessment. Rankings express that group's preferences; they do not automatically represent the community or establish feasibility. [1]

  1. Define the question and explain the process
  2. Individual silent generation: 5–10 minutes
  3. Round-robin sharing
  4. Clarification
  5. Individual voting and counting
  6. Discuss results and reach final agreement
Sequence of implementation steps. See “Implementation steps” for details of each stage.

When to use it and when it is unsuitable

When to use it

  • When designing equal opportunities for people of different roles or status to contribute
  • When quickly reaching group agreement on evaluation questions, criteria or improvement proposals
  • When preventing domination by louder participants during brainstorming
  • When determining objective priorities through anonymous voting

When it is unsuitable

  • Allow additional dialogue time when seeking deeper perspectives through extended free discussion.
  • When individual thinking time, turns for everyone or secret voting are infeasible. Consider splitting large groups.

Participants, roles, and deliverables

Participants and roles

Small groups; CDC's preparation example uses 5–9 people, adjusted for purpose and speaking opportunities, with 1 facilitator and 1 recorder. One session; several groups may run concurrently.

Main deliverables

  • Prioritized ideas with vote totals
  • All ideas recorded on flipcharts

Implementation steps

  1. Define the question and explain the process
    Set a specific central question, “What do you consider most important?”, such as the highest-priority evaluation question for this program. The facilitator explains the process and creates a safe atmosphere for everyone.
  2. Individual silent generation: 5–10 minutes
    Everyone silently writes their own ideas. This is the most important stage for maximizing independent ideas without others' influence. The facilitator prohibits speaking or conversation.
  3. Round-robin sharing
    Each person presents 1 idea per turn while the facilitator records it on a flipchart. Repeat until all ideas are shared. No discussion, criticism or questions at this stage.
  4. Clarification
    Clarify all ideas and merge duplicates. Speakers can now explain and others ask questions. Allow discussion but refrain from criticism.
  5. Individual voting and counting
    Explain selection counts and points before voting. Participants rank privately without seeing others' votes. Choose rules appropriate to candidate counts and distinguish total points from numbers choosing an option.
  6. Discuss results and reach final agreement
    Discuss and adjust results to finalize priorities. Unexpected high or low rankings can generate important insights.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Separating independent generation, turn-taking and private voting supports speaking opportunities and independent judgments.
  • Silent generation elicits original ideas without others' influence.
  • Efficiently reaches priority agreement within 1–3 hours.
  • A simple process produces highly reliable results.

Limitations

  • Weaker for mutual learning between groups, deep dialogue and integrating perspectives.
  • Less suited to divergent creativity because ideas outside the list rarely emerge.
  • Voting does not necessarily identify the best answer.

Common pitfalls

  • Skipping silent generation in favor of immediate hand-raising loses NGT's greatest benefit.
  • Allowing participants to say “Same as someone else” during round-robin undermines equality. Clarify rules for passing.
  • Maintain anonymous counting because senior participants may pressure others to change votes afterward.

Conditions of use and evidence

  • Record individual ideas, clarify meanings, then prioritize through individual voting. [1]
  • CDC's NGT preparation example uses 5–9 people, but set numbers according to purpose and everyone's speaking opportunities. [1]
Fictional example; not actual results

6 people prioritize desk improvements

A fictional illustrative meeting: 6 people select the top 2 of 3 options, assigning 2 points to first and 1 to second.

Idea numberIdea summaryTotal pointsNumber selecting
1Telephone booking85
2Evening appointments64
3Short information text43

Common errors in judgment

Common mistake

Starting with free discussion and voting for frequently mentioned ideas

How to revise

Start with independent generation and round-robin sharing.

ReasonCollect opinions before they are influenced by others' statements.

Common mistake

Implementing the highest-scoring idea without consideration

How to revise

Check rankings, resources and implementation conditions.

ReasonVoting expresses participant priorities, not implementation conditions.

Organize your thinking by writing

NGT implementation worksheet for facilitators

A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.

Open worksheet

Related methods

Delphi MethodFocus Group DiscussionWorld CaféKey Evaluation QuestionsStakeholder Analysis

References and checked sections

  1. Gaining Consensus Among Stakeholders Through the Nominal Group Technique (Evaluation Briefs No. 7)
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · 2018
    Section consulted
    Defining the Nominal Group Technique; The Four Step Process to Conduct NGT; p.1 How to Prepare for NGT / The Meeting Room
    How it relates to the text
    Record individual ideas, clarify meanings, then prioritize through individual voting. A room for 5–9 people is a preparation example, not an optimal count for every setting.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checkingCite this pageReport a correction

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Nominal Group Technique”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-10-07. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/nominal-group-technique/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history
  • — Updated explanations to correspond with sources, and added method-specific fictional worksheet examples, judgment examples and revision history.
  • — Made minimal corrections to assertions, fixed conditions or inconsistencies between worksheets and examples based on content check FW-02. Preserved field counts, order, labels and section structure. Did not change verification status of unchecked material.
  • — Based on limited follow-up investigation FW-U01–U05, clarified applicability of analysis methods, recording deadlines and participant counts and premises for response checks. Preserved existing fields without declaring numerical guidance itself erroneous.