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 KPI Tree with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
KPI Tree
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
When metrics across the organization drift apart, it arranges drivers and effects under one shared logic. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as a KPI tree and owner list.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.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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
90-180 min initial, dann laufend1-3 h60-120 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-85-305-124-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
KPI Tree, Owner ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
MetricsStrategyAlignmentMeasurement
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods