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 RecordSpecification by ExampleQuality Attribute WorkshopRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Agile Specification by Example |  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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 3-6 | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |