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
Paper illustration for Pareto Analysis
Decision Making
Pareto Analysis
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
In many problem situations, effect is distributed unequally across many causes. A Pareto Analysis separates the few drivers with high leverage from the long remainder and focuses attention on what measurably moves the needle.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 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 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
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
30-60 min1-3 h60-120 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
1-65-305-123-20
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Pareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods