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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  UX Research Personas |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 1-3 Tage | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 5-30 | Internes Team | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery |