View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Customer Journey MappingAffinity DiagrammingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 45–90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks |
Tagsno overlap | JourneyServiceService design | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |