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 calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
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 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 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 a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h30-60 min60-120 min60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
5-303-105-124-10
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
Add more methods