View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | Internes Team | 4-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |