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 MappingCustomer Journey CanvasRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  UX Design Customer Journey Canvas |  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 a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 2-4 h | 1-3 h | 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 | Customer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | JourneyServiceService design | JourneyCustomerService designCanvas | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |