View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations 5 Whys |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-5 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis |
Tagsno overlap | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations |