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 Customer Journey Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | JourneyServiceService design | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |