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 |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 5-30 | 3-10 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |