Compare

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 Record Decision Rights Mapping Strategy Execution Loop Request for Comments

Criterion	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping	Business Strategy Strategy Execution Loop	Architecture Request for Comments
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.	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.	The Strategy Execution Loop helps avoid treating strategy as a one-off document. It makes visible how strategic decisions are turned into objectives, initiatives, operational work, measurement, and learning.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	High	Medium
Timedifferent	15-45 min	90-180 min	Initial 3-6 h, then monthly or quarterly reviews	1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung
Participantsdifferent	1-3	4-12	5-12	3-20 Reviewer
Formatdifferent	Async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement	Execution Loop, Review Cadence, Strategic Learning Log	RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets
Tags1 shared	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility	ExecutionCadenceLearningGovernance	ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance

Add more methods