View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Architecture Decision RecordCustomer Journey MappingAffinity DiagrammingRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 2-4 h | 45–90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 4-10 | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | JourneyServiceService design | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |