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 Shape Up |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 1-3 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |