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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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.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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h5-15 min45–90 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
5-303-203-105-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods