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 |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-6 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |