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
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 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 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 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
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min30-60 min60-120 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-103-105-125-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods