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 for Feynman Technique.
Knowledge Modeling
Feynman Technique
Paper illustration for Open Space Technology.
Facilitation
Open Space Technology
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.The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work.When a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order.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
MediumLowHighLow
Timedifferent
60-120 min20-60 min0.5-2 Tage5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-12120-500+3-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityPlain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study NotesSession Marketplace, Proceedings, Action TopicsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding
FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods