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 Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. | 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 | 30–60 min | 15-45 min | 60-180 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-3 | 4-20 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |