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 Three Horizons with its method-specific working model.
Business Strategy
Three Horizons
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
Three Horizons helps clarify strategic options across different timeframes. It compares strengths, risks, market logic, and investment choices, and captures the result as a horizon map, portfolio view, and initiatives per horizon.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 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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
Halbtags-Workshop, dann iterativ60-120 min1-2 h5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
3-125-124-123-20
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Horizon map, Portfolio view, Initiatives per horizon, Resource planRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision QuestionsRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
StrategyInnovationPortfolioForesight
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods