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 RecordValue Stream MappingMonte Carlo ForecastingRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  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 delivery work dissolves into wait times, handoffs, and hidden effort, Value Stream Mapping makes the actual flow visible. The method exposes bottlenecks, idle time, and feedback loops so lead time and improvement levers become tangible. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 | 1-3 h | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 4-10 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |