methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of two user profile cards with a goal, behavior evidence, and an open research question.
UX Research
Personas
Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions.When several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic.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 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.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 Tage45-90 min1-3 h1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
Internes Team2-85-304-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesDecision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected OptionConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods