methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Paper illustration of two user profile cards with a goal, behavior evidence, and an open research question.
UX Research
Personas
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min30–60 min1-3 Tage1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-104-8Internes Team5-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsPersona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods