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
Stakeholder Mapping
Facilitation
Stakeholder Mapping
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first.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 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
MediumLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min60–90 min5-15 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
2-102-83-205-30
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RICE Scores, Ranked List, Assumption LogStakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk NotesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
PrioritizationScoringRoadmapTradeoffs
StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods