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
Process Mapping method illustration showing its working structure
Operations
Process Mapping
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
Paper illustration of a review with planned work, actual event sequence, comparison, and assigned improvement actions.
Operations
After-Action Review
Purposedifferent
With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots.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.After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 h60-120 min5-15 min20-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-105-123-203-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement BacklogRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistLessons learned, Action items, Event summary
Tagsno overlap
ProcessOperationsImprovement
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
LearningOperationsImprovement
Add more methods