View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Operations Accountability Ladder |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. | 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 20-45 min | 45–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |