View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45–90 min | 30-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |