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
Software Architecture Canvas method illustration showing its working structure
Architecture
Software Architecture Canvas
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.The Software Architecture Canvas reduces a system to the most important architecture decisions, constraints, and interfaces. It is useful when teams need a resilient overall picture quickly.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
LowLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
30-60 min1-2 h60-120 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
1-63-105-123-20
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Pareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus ListArchitecture Canvas, Goals, Constraints, Quality AttributesRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause
CanvasArchitectureAlignmentWorkshop
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods