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 User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |