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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Cynefin 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. | 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. | 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. | When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |