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 InterviewsSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Opportunity InterviewATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  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. | 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. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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 | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 30-60 min je Interview | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 5-12 Interviews | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | 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 | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | 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 | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |