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 Delphi Method |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  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 knowledge is distributed and direct dominance should be avoided, groups quickly fall under the sway of their opinion leaders. The Delphi Method gathers assessments iteratively and gradually brings expert judgments closer together. | 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 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 6-30 Experten | 1-8 | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Expert Forecast, Consensus Range, Assumption Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ForecastingExpertsDecisionStrategy | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |