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 radar with five axes, two current and target profiles, and evidence cards beside each dimension.
Decision Making
Radar
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do.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 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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h5-15 min60-120 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
2-103-205-125-30
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
AssessmentPortfolioCapability
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods