View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-3 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-10 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |