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 Quality Attribute Workshop |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 2-4 h | 90-180 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-15 | 4-12 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |