methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of Goal Question Metric with its method-specific working model.
Engineering
Goal Question Metric
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.Helps clarify technical problems, hypotheses, and next steps in concrete terms. It breaks a technical problem into testable parts. The result is captured as a GQM table and metric briefs.When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h5-15 min90-180 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-123-203-65-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistGQM Table, Metric ProfilesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
MetricsMeasurementEngineeringAlignment
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods