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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Decision Making Decision Rights 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 5-30 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |