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 WorkshopSpecification by ExampleArchitecture Decision RecordRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Agile Specification by Example |  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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |