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 |  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 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 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 | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |