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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 | 2-6 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SensemakingDecisionRationale | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |