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
Surveys method illustration showing its working structure
UX Research
Surveys
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal.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.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.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
3-14 Tage60-120 min1-3 h1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
50+5-125-304-12
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Survey Results, Charts, Segment InsightsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
QuantitativeResearchValidation
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods