View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Quality Attribute WorkshopAssumption SurfacingArchitecture Decision RecordRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 2-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |