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 |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 | 3-6 | 10-50 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |