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 a scoring table with four factor columns, a calculator and three ordered initiative cards.
Product Strategy
RICE Scoring
Paper illustration for Trade-off Analysis.
Decision Making
Trade-off Analysis
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.When many initiatives compete for the same resources, it brings reach, impact, confidence, and effort into one shared ranking. It makes prioritization economically connectable.With limited resources, quality, speed, cost, and risk almost always compete with each other. Trade-off Analysis makes these tensions explicit and prevents decisions from producing hidden side effects.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
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h60-90 min45-120 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-302-102-83-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRICE Scores, Ranked List, Assumption LogTrade-off Matrix, Criteria List, Decision Rationale, Accepted DownsidesRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
PrioritizationScoringRoadmapTradeoffs
TradeoffsDecisionCriteriaOptions
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods