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 Contextual Inquiry |  Knowledge Modeling Domain Storytelling |  Operations After-Action Review |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | Domain Storytelling translates domain knowledge into a shared narrative of actors, objects, and workflows. It is especially useful when language, rules, and process understanding must be tightly connected. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen | 1-2 h | 20-45 min | 20-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 2-8 | 3-12 | 1 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Domain Story, Glossary Notes, Process Narrative | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes |
Tagsno overlap | UX researchObservationContext | KnowledgeDomain-Driven DesignProcess | LearningOperationsImprovement | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding |