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
A paper-based illustration representing North Star Metric with its core stages and visible working result.
Growth
North Star 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.When product teams track many metrics, the view of the actual customer outcome easily gets lost. A North Star Metric bundles growth, usage, and value contribution into one signal that makes the system's direction visible.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 min1-2 h1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-123-203-85-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistNorth Star metric, Input metric tree, Measurement cadenceConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
GrowthMetricsAlignmentRetention
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods