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 of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely.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 several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.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
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h60-120 min45-90 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
3-125-122-83-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityDecision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods