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
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Affinity Estimation.
Agile
Affinity Estimation
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
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 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 many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes.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
60-120 min1-3 h30-90 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-125-303-123-20
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasAffinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear ItemsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
EstimationBacklogRelative sizing
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods