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
A paper-based illustration representing WSJF with its core stages and visible working result.
Agile
WSJF
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration of a calibrated five-by-five risk matrix with response cards.
Decision Making
Risk Matrix
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Purposedifferent
When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together.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 a project faces many possible disruptions, it quickly becomes unclear which risks deserve attention first. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Risk Matrix and a Top Risk List.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
HighMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 h30-60 min5-15 min
Participantsdifferent
3-105-303-103-20
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay AssumptionsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRisk Matrix, Top Risk ListRanked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist
Tagsno overlap
LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
RiskDecisionPrioritizationAssessment
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
Add more methods