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 Problem Framing Workshop |  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 team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. | 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 | 60-120 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | 4-10 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |