View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Argument MappingArchitecture Decision RecordTeam Topologies Interaction ModesRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Team Design Team Topologies Interaction Modes |  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 several teams collaborate repeatedly, it describes the right interaction mode for each interface between them. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as an interaction heat map and pairwise agreements. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | Half day | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-3 | Team-Leads plus Architecture | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Interaction Heat Map, Agreements per Pair | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | TeamAlignmentCollaborationOrganization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |