View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Red Teaming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | For strategic decisions with high reach, agreement and gut feeling are often not enough. Red teaming brings deliberate opposition into the situation and tests where a plan breaks under real counterarguments. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 1-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | 1-8 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Challenge Findings, Risk Register, Mitigation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RiskDecisionSensemaking |