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 Three Horizons with its method-specific working model.
Business Strategy
Three Horizons
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of a two-by-two Ansoff Matrix with four growth directions
Business Strategy
Ansoff Matrix
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.Three Horizons helps clarify strategic options across different timeframes. It compares strengths, risks, market logic, and investment choices, and captures the result as a horizon map, portfolio view, and initiatives per horizon.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.The Ansoff Matrix organizes growth options by market and product relation. It helps weigh expansion, diversification, and adaptation cleanly against each other.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
5-15 minHalbtags-Workshop, dann iterativ60-120 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-203-125-122-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistHorizon map, Portfolio view, Initiatives per horizon, Resource planRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityAnsoff Matrix, Growth Options, Risk Notes
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
StrategyInnovationPortfolioForesight
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
GrowthStrategyMarketPortfolio
Add more methods