View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making RAPID |  Architecture Request for Comments |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionRolesGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |