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 Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 15-45 min | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-3 | 4-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |