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
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper matrix with six colored hat cards for information, feeling, value, caution, ideas and process control.
Facilitation
Six Thinking Hats
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.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 topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30-90 min1-3 h45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
1-65-304-124-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasPerspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action ItemsAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
DecisionTreeOptions
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationOptionsDecision
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods