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
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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.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.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
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h5-15 min60-120 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
5-303-205-124-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tags1 shared
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods