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 arc42 |  Decision Making RAPID |  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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | 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. | 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 | 1-2 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-4 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | RAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | DecisionRolesGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |