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 Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |