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 calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
A hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
When a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.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.In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.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
LowMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
30-60 min1-3 h20–45 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
3-105-30Small cross-functional group3-20
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Risk Matrix, Top Risk ListConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRisk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods