# Nominal Group Technique: Four Steps and a Worked Ranking Example

Nominal group technique explained in four steps, with a ranking worksheet, worked scoring example, and practical guidance for ties and disagreement.

- Canonical URL: https://www.harmate.com/en/blog/nominal-group-technique-example
- Author: Harmate Team
- Published: 2026-10-25
- Updated: 2026-10-25T22:41:46.079869+00:00
- Language: en

## Content

# Nominal Group Technique: Four Steps and a Worked Ranking Example

The nominal group technique organizes a meeting into four stages: silent idea generation, round-robin sharing, clarification, and individual ranking. Its output is a ranking under an explicit rule, together with the reasons and disagreements needed to interpret it.

For consultants and facilitators, it offers a way to structure a session in which people propose options and then express their priorities. This guide provides a working protocol and a calculation you can check. A vote does not establish that an option will work in practice.

## When is the nominal group technique useful?

The [methodological review by McMillan, King, and Tully](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4909789/) describes these four stages and variations. Published in a pharmacy context, it provides a methodological reference here; it does not demonstrate the effectiveness of every consulting or workplace application.

Choose a question narrow enough to produce comparable proposals. “How should we improve our organization?” leaves a broad field to rank. “Which changes to the handoff should we investigate first?” defines both an object and a next step.

Use a different approach if you first need to understand experiences in depth, establish technical constraints, or address a decision that participants cannot influence. Ranking cannot substitute for that work. The [brainstorming guide](/en/blog/brainstorming-generate-ideas-and-choose-the-next-step) covers broader idea exploration. The [Delphi method](/en/blog/delphi-method-consult-experts-without-manufacturing-consensus) uses a different arrangement: repeated consultation rounds with structured feedback, rather than a nominal-group meeting.

## Agree on the rule before the session

Write down the question, scope, ranking criterion, and intended use of the result. For example: “Rank the options by how worthwhile they would be to test next month. The responsible team will assess feasibility afterward.” This separates a preference for testing from permission to implement.

State how many options each participant can rank, which direction the points run, and how incomplete ballots and ties will be handled. Choose a simple rule people understand before seeing the results. Changing it afterward would favor the options someone already wants to win.

Prepare an individual worksheet or input space, a shared visible list, stable option identifiers, and someone responsible for the calculation. Adapt the timing and materials to participants’ access needs. Ballots may be confidential even when everyone knows who attended: explain exactly who will see individual choices and comments.

## Step 1: generate ideas silently

Display the same question for everyone. Each person writes proposals independently, one idea per line, before discussion begins. Wording should be understandable without a supporting speech: “assign a receiving contact to each handoff” is more specific than “improve communication.”

The facilitator can clarify the task without supplying the expected answer. Do not yet ask people to defend, evaluate, or group their proposals. Keep the original wording so the group can check what changed during clarification.

## Step 2: collect one idea per person per round

Go around the group, adding one proposal from each person to the shared list. Participants may pass. Continue until the proposals have been collected. This turn-taking rule makes the collection process explicit; it does not, by itself, guarantee equal participation or remove power differences.

Stay close to each contributor’s wording. If two ideas look similar, record them separately at first. “Notify the receiving team” and “obtain confirmation of receipt” might refer to different changes. Combining them immediately would erase a distinction before participants can examine it.

## Step 3: clarify without forcing agreement

Review each proposal: “What does this action mean? In which situation would it apply?” The purpose is to make the options understandable before ranking. An objection may reveal a useful ambiguity; it is not a reason to quietly delete a proposal.

Merge duplicates only when their meaning is genuinely shared and the people concerned agree. Retain the old identifiers in the notes. Split a proposal containing two independent actions before the vote. Changing the option list after ranking would require checking participants’ choices again.

## Step 4: rank independently and calculate

Participants complete their ballots without negotiating their preferences. In this **entirely fictional example**, four people choose three options: 3 points for their first choice, 2 for their second, and 1 for their third. An unselected option receives 0. This scoring rule is a convention for the exercise, not a validated measurement scale.

| Code | Clarified proposal |
|---|---|
| A | Agree on the information required for a handoff |
| B | Identify a recipient for every handoff |
| C | Hold a brief review of unresolved cases |
| D | Test an explicit receipt message |

The individual worksheet has three lines: first choice [code], second choice [code], third choice [code], followed by an open space for the reason. A code can appear only once on a ballot. Check that participants understood this before collecting their sheets.

| Option | Participant 1 | Participant 2 | Participant 3 | Participant 4 | Total | Ballots selecting it |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| A | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 3 |
| B | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 |
| C | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| D | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 |

Check the arithmetic: each participant column contains 6 points, so four ballots produce 24. The row totals also add to 24. This check can catch some transcription mistakes; it cannot identify a poorly framed question or an important perspective missing from the group.

## What do ties and disagreements mean?

Every option is tied here. Yet individual preferences differ: each option receives one first choice and is left out of one ballot. Reporting that “the group agrees” would erase that pattern.

An announced tie rule might retain tied options for feasibility checks. Ask what explains each choice and what would change the preference. Someone may favor A because information is missing, while another person favors D because they cannot tell whether a handoff was received. Those reasons point to two different things to investigate.

If you plan a second ranking after clarification, say so and retain both results. Do not repeat votes until apparent unanimity appears. A documented constraint may make a highly ranked option impractical; record the constraint and who verified it rather than treating the score as permission to proceed.

## Report a ranking people can interpret

Share the question, final option list, ranking rule, results, reasons, and participation limits. Add a next check and an owner for each option taken forward. People who were absent have not endorsed the result simply because they did not vote.

The guide to [stakeholder consultation without false consensus](/en/blog/stakeholder-consultation-deciding-without-false-consensus) helps clarify who will use these findings and how the eventual decision will be explained. A workshop can produce a useful ranking while leaving a meaningful disagreement unresolved.

If participants provide written explanations, [Harmate’s open-ended response analysis](/en/product/open-questions) can help you examine themes and return to the associated excerpts. Keep ballot arithmetic in your working sheet: Harmate is not presented here as a native nominal-group voting module. The facilitator interprets the ranking with participants, and the designated decision owner determines what happens next.