View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery RAID Log |  UX Research Personas |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-3 Tage | 45-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | Internes Team | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |