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 people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
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 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 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
LowLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
60-90 min30–60 min30–60 min per interview1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
4-104-81 participant per interview5-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsInterview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods