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 |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | 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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 15-45 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-12 Interviews | 1-3 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |