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 InterviewsRequest for CommentsAssumption SurfacingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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. | 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. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | 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 | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |