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 Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |