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 Cynefin Workshop |  Architecture arc42 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 60-180 min | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-20 | 1-4 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | SensemakingDecisionRationale |