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
Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h5-15 min90-180 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
5-303-203-84-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistCoD Table, Prioritization SequenceAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods