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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
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 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 a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing.When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
60-120 min5-15 min30–60 min60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
5-123-204-84-10
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
Add more methods