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 Leverage Points with its method-specific working model.
Systems Thinking
Leverage Points
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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
Purposedifferent
Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
Half day1-3 h5-15 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-125-303-205-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Leverage Map, Action StrategyConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingChangeStrategy
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods