View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Brainwriting |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Starbursting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When loud voices or hierarchy distort the idea search, the method creates a quiet entry into joint development. It gives everyone thinking space and gathers contributions without social brakes, making diversity more visible and easier to build on. | 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 a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | Helps clarify ideas, open questions, and testable next steps in concrete terms. It opens the thinking space, collects ideas, and leads to testable options. The result is captured as a star-shaped question map, question list, and assumption list. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Idea sheets, Expanded concepts, Prioritized list | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Star-Shaped Question Map, Question List, Assumption List |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingCollaborationInclusionIdeas | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationWorkshopDiscovery |