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 |  Operations Kepner-Tregoe |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 2-8 h | 30–60 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 2-8 | 4-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Problem Analysis, Decision Analysis, Risk Plan | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | Problem solvingRoot causeDecisionOperations | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |