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 |  Delivery MoSCoW |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | PrioritizationScopeDecision | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |