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 a JTBD interview notebook with a decision timeline, forces of change and a concise job hypothesis.
Product Discovery
Jobs to Be Done
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought.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 group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
60-120 min1-3 Wochen5-15 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
5-125-12 Interviews3-205-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityJob Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity ListRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
CustomerOutcomesNeeds
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods