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 |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Architecture Risk Storming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 2-4 h | 60-90 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-15 | 4-12 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |