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 a branching impact map with a Why goal at the root, actor circles, How behavior changes and What options.
Product Strategy
Impact Mapping
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures.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 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
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min45-90 min1-3 h60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-203-85-305-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistImpact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery OptionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods