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
Gap Analysis method illustration showing its working structure
Business Strategy
GAP Analysis
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 branching impact map with a Why goal at the root, actor circles, How behavior changes and What options.
Product Strategy
Impact Mapping
Purposedifferent
GAP Analysis compares the current state with a target picture and makes the distance manageable. It becomes useful when, ahead of new initiatives, it must become clear which capabilities, processes, or resources are missing.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 h5-15 min60-120 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
2-83-205-123-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Gap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk NotesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityImpact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery Options
Tagsno overlap
StrategyAnalysisPlanning
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning
Add more methods