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
A paper-based illustration representing WSJF with its core stages and visible working result.
Agile
WSJF
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 many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together.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
MediumHighLowMedium
Timedifferent
60-120 min45-90 min5-15 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
5-123-103-205-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay AssumptionsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods