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 Empathy Mapping |  Operations Accountability Ladder |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 20-45 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-8 | 1-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |