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 Nominal Group Technique |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 2-4 h | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 4-10 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | JourneyServiceService design | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |