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 |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  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 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |