View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Architecture Decision RecordCustomer Journey CanvasRequest for CommentsArchitecture Communication Canvas
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Design Customer Journey Canvas |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear. | 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. | The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Customer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | JourneyCustomerService designCanvas | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas |