View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Innovation Lotus Blossom |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 a central question feels too large, the method breaks it into neighboring topic fields with their own depth of ideation. It holds structure and openness at the same time, so adjacent perspectives don't get lost. This grows an idea space out of a core problem. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-3 | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Lotus Diagram, Idea Themes, Shortlist | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityDivergenceWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |