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 Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 60-120 min | 60–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 5-12 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | JourneyServiceService design | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |