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 RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID
Paper illustration of Decision Rights Mapping with its method-specific working model.
Decision Making
Decision Rights Mapping
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.In complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels.In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
60-120 min1-3 h45-90 min90-180 min
Participantsdifferent
5-125-303-124-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision LogDecision Rights Matrix, Agreement
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
DecisionRolesGovernance
DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility
Add more methods