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 Request for Comments |  UX Research User Interviews |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30–60 min per interview | 90-180 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |