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 MappingSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
| Criterion |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
