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 of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
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.Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h90-180 min1-2 h5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-303-84-123-20
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasCoD Table, Prioritization SequenceAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods