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 scoring table with four factor columns, a calculator and three ordered initiative cards.
Product Strategy
RICE Scoring
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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
Purposedifferent
When many initiatives compete for the same resources, it brings reach, impact, confidence, and effort into one shared ranking. It makes prioritization economically connectable.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min1-3 h5-15 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
2-105-303-205-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RICE Scores, Ranked List, Assumption LogConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationScoringRoadmapTradeoffs
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods