iMindQ vs. Powernoodle

Well Suited:

• Groups needing to make a decision
• Democratically based decision making
• Sensitive topics
• Discussions Groups needing input

• Powernoodle has ignited deeper, more candid conversations among our team leaders. We've been able to see through these discussions that we haven't always told our story in the most compelling manner, and that we need to be clearer, more concise and less wordy. Since Powernoodle limits your contributions to a certain number of characters, it forces you to think hard about what you really want to say. This feature was particularly powerful for our organization, which has tended to verbosity.
• Powernoodle allowed us to vet old and new ideas in a safe space, minimizing biases and groupthink. In many organizations there are some who speak more than others, and often their ideas get more attention. What Powernoodle does brilliantly is it allows, actually requires, each participant to write what they wish anonymously and without interruption. Each participant is equal in the sense that all input into Powernoodle is brief (limited number of characters) and the anonymity definitely prevents the usual bias toward those who speak the most.
• Powernoodle increased critical thinking about our organization and forced us to re-examine why and how we do what we do. With Powernoodle, we were able to look at everyone's ideas, comment on them, decide if some should be merged, and ultimately vote on them. The Powernoodle process forced us to be clear, which meant we each needed to think critically about what has worked and what hasn't worked for us, and how we move forward with what has worked and with new ideas.

• It's not mobile friendly yet, but other than that no complaints!

• While we are still in the beginning stages of taking action on the decisions we made using the Powernoodle process, I have no doubt that there will be a very positive ROI on our overall objectives.