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 |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 60-120 min | 1-2 h | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-12 | 4-12 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |