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 Intervention Mapping.
Systems Thinking
Intervention Mapping
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.Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain.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
MediumHighLow
Timedifferent
60-120 min1-5 Tage5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-124-123-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityLogic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree
Paper illustration of Leverage Points with its method-specific working model.
Systems Thinking
Leverage Points