View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 15-45 min | 30–60 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-3 | 4-8 | 5-15 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop |