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 Personas |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 15-45 min | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-3 | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |