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 Risk Storming |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  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. | 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. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 | 60-90 min | 45–90 min | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 | 5-15 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop |