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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture Request for Comments |  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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |