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 InterviewsDIBBLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |