methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration for RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
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.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.In complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels.When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
15-45 min1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45-90 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
1-33-20 Reviewer3-121-8
Formatdifferent
AsyncAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
ADR File, Decision Log, RationaleRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsRAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision LogArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
DecisionRolesGovernance
SensemakingDecisionRationale
Add more methods