View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture C4 Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | 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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-5 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram |
Tagsno overlap | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization |