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 User Interviews |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 60–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |