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 Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Personas |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making DACI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Internes Team | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment |