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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 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 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30–60 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-8 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |