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 |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Decision Making DACI |  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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 3-12 | 2-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |