View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |