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 Personas |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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 | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 Tage | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 10-50 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |