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 for Evaporating Cloud.
Systems Thinking
Evaporating Cloud
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.The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict.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
MediumHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
60-120 min1-5 Tage60-120 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
5-124-122-83-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityLogic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation PlanConflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next ExperimentsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
ChangeSystems thinkingCapability
Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods