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
A paper-based illustration representing Kano Model with its core stages and visible working result.
Product Discovery
Kano Model
Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight.When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage45-90 min60-120 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
10-502-85-123-20
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority ThemesDecision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods