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
A hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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.In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.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 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
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
5-15 min20–45 min60-120 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-20Small cross-functional group5-125-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRisk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods