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 Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Decision Jam |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-12 | 5-30 | 4-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ChangeDecisionStrategy | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop |