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 Dot Voting |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. | When a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1 participant per interview | 5-30 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery |