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 Consensus Workshop |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Operations Kepner-Tregoe |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | For a disturbance that's hard to pin down, the method cleanly separates problem, cause, and decision. It reduces mixing when symptoms allow several interpretations. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45–90 min | 2-8 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 3-10 | 2-8 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Problem Analysis, Decision Analysis, Risk Plan | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Problem solvingRoot causeDecisionOperations | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |