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 of an assumption matrix with prioritized test cards
Decision Making
Assumption Surfacing
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.Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it.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
LowLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
30-60 min5-15 min45-90 min60-120 min
Participantsdifferent
3-103-202-85-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Risk Matrix, Top Risk ListRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistAssumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning PlanRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority
Tagsno overlap
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
Add more methods