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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  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. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 4-5 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 5-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
