View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Golden Path |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage Setup, laufend | 2-4 h | 45–90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-15 | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Golden Path Guide, Templates, Quality Checks | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | EngineeringProductivityGovernance | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |