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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 60–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |