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 Opportunity Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Discovery
Opportunity Scoring
Paper illustration for World Café.
Facilitation
World Café
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
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 opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes.When a group needs to connect many viewpoints in a short time, World Café creates a calm alternation between closeness and rotation. It sets thinking in motion without forcing the conversation into full-plenary rigidity.When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min60-120 min60-180 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-203-612-100+8-80
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistOpportunity Score Table, Top OutcomesTable Notes, Emergent Themes, Shared QuestionsDiscussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds
FacilitationDialogueLarge groupSensemaking
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
Add more methods