View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery RAID Log |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 4-8 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |