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 |  UX Research HEART Framework |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Engineering Goal Question Metric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify observations, needs, and patterns in concrete terms. It groups observations into patterns, questions, and decisions. The result is captured as a HEART-GSM table and dashboard. | 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. | Helps clarify technical problems, hypotheses, and next steps in concrete terms. It breaks a technical problem into testable parts. The result is captured as a GQM table and metric briefs. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 120 min initial, dann laufend | 1-3 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-6 | 5-30 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | HEART-GSM Table, Dashboard | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | GQM Table, Metric Profiles |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | MetricsUX researchMeasurementSatisfaction | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | MetricsMeasurementEngineeringAlignment |