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 |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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 | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-10 | 3-12 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |