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 |  Engineering Golden Path |  Architecture Quality Attribute 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. | When teams need a reliable default path for frequent use, sprawl quickly emerges without any guiding logic. Golden Path bundles the preferred path so good practice becomes easy and deviation becomes deliberate. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage Setup, laufend | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Golden Path Guide, Templates, Quality Checks | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | EngineeringProductivityGovernance | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |