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 for Risk Storming.
Architecture
Risk Storming
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
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog.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.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
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min5-15 min60-120 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-123-205-125-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action BacklogRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods