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 for Monte Carlo Forecasting.
Delivery
Monte Carlo Forecasting
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
Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication.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
HighLowMedium
Timedifferent
30-90 min Setup, danach laufend5-15 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
1-83-205-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk CommunicationRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
ForecastingFlowDelivery
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay