View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Risk Storming |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-2 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-10 | 4-12 | 4-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |