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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
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 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable.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
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30-60 min5-15 min1-2 h60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-103-204-125-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Risk Matrix, Top Risk ListRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods