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 of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
A paper-based illustration representing North Star Metric with its core stages and visible working result.
Growth
North Star Metric
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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 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 product teams track many metrics, the view of the actual customer outcome easily gets lost. A North Star Metric bundles growth, usage, and value contribution into one signal that makes the system's direction visible.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-3 h1-2 h1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-205-303-84-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasNorth Star metric, Input metric tree, Measurement cadenceAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
GrowthMetricsAlignmentRetention
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods