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
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
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 lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
5-15 min30–60 min60-120 min60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-204-85-124-10
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
Add more methods