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
A hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
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.In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.When a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.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
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h20–45 min30-60 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-30Small cross-functional group3-103-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRisk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods