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 Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
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.When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighHighMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min1-4 Wochen90-180 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-101-63-85-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryCoD Table, Prioritization SequenceConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods