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 |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Agile NoEstimates |  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. | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 h | laufend | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 4-10 | 2-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | EstimationForecastingFlow | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |