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 Three-Point Estimation.
Decision Making
Three-Point Estimation
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Monte Carlo Forecasting.
Delivery
Monte Carlo Forecasting
Purposedifferent
A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes.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.Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
10-30 min je Item5-15 min30-90 min Setup, danach laufend
Participantsdifferent
1-83-201-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption NotesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistForecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication
Tagsno overlap
EstimationUncertaintyForecasting
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ForecastingFlowDelivery
Add more methods

Often compared together

Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.

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 of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay