View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Personas |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |