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 Views and Beyond |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Views and Beyond organizes architecture into several views so no single diagram has to do everything at once. This makes it possible to choose the representation that fits the stakeholder's question. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-4 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |