View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Affinity DiagrammingQuality Attribute WorkshopRequest for CommentsArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |