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 |  Decision Making Red Teaming |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For strategic decisions with high reach, agreement and gut feeling are often not enough. Red teaming brings deliberate opposition into the situation and tests where a plan breaks under real counterarguments. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Challenge Findings, Risk Register, Mitigation Plan | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | RiskDecisionSensemaking | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |