View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  UX Research User Interviews |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 60-180 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1 participant per interview | 4-20 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | SensemakingDecisionRationale |