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 Stakeholder Salience Model |  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 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 stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 60-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-12 | 3-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |