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 Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-10 | 3-12 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |