View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 30–60 min | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 4-8 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |