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 Personas |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 90-180 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 4-12 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SensemakingDecisionRationale | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |