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 User Interviews |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |