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 Problem Framing Workshop |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Operations Accountability Ladder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 60-120 min | 45-90 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-10 | 3-10 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam |