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 PERT Estimation.
Decision Making
PERT Estimation
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Dot Estimation.
Facilitation
Dot Estimation
Purposedifferent
On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes.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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLow
Timedifferent
15-45 min5-15 min5-20 min
Participantsdifferent
1-83-203-20
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk NotesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistEffort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets
Tagsno overlap
EstimationUncertaintyRisk
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
EstimationEffortRisk
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix