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 Request for Comments |  Innovation TRIZ |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | For technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-4 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |