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 Architecture Decision Record |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Views and Beyond |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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. | Views and Beyond organizes architecture into several views so no single diagram has to do everything at once. This makes it possible to choose the representation that fits the stakeholder's question. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 2-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture |