View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 30–60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-10 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AutonomyRolesTeam |