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 InterviewsATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Assumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  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. | 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. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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 | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |