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 Card Sorting |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 1-3 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |