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 Shape Up with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Shape Up
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
Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts.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
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down5-15 min60-120 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
2-4 pro Pitch3-205-125-30
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
PlanningDeliveryAutonomy
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods