View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Personas |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | 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 | 1-3 Tage | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | Internes Team | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |