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 |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-8 | 2-8 | 5-30 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |