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 ExampleRequest for CommentsArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture Request for Comments |  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. | 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 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. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 3-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |