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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60–90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |