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 Personas |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  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 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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | Internes Team | 5-30 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |