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
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 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 project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min60-120 min30-60 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-205-123-105-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods