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 Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |