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
Context Map workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Domain Modeling
Context Map
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment 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 several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
60-120 min1-3 h5-15 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
5-122-83-204-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityContext Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary NotesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods