View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 4-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |