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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making DACI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment |