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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Purposedifferent
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.When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-3 h15-45 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-201-81-35-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleADR File, Decision Log, RationaleRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
SensemakingDecisionRationale
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods