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 |  Operations RACI Matrix |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Operations Accountability Ladder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | With unclear responsibilities across several roles or areas, the method creates unambiguous accountability logic. It reduces friction because decision, execution, contribution, and information become separately visible. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 3-10 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | RACI Matrix, Responsibility Map, Decision Notes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RolesResponsibilityGovernanceOperations | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam |