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 many question cards around one challenge
Facilitation
Question Burst
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
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 problem gets covered up too quickly with answers, Question Burst puts the better question at the center. The format opens the thinking space before the group commits to an interpretation.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.When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
60-120 min15-30 min1-3 h1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
5-122-85-304-12
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityQuestion List, Reframed Challenge, Learning PromptsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tags1 shared
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
QuestionsReframingFacilitationSensemaking
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods