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 |  Agile Example Mapping |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 60-90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-7 | 4-12 | 5-15 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop |