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 |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 60–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |