View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:User InterviewsArchitecture Decision RecordStakeholder Salience ModelProblem Framing Workshop
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | When a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 15-45 min | 60-90 min | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-3 | 3-6 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery |