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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture Views and Beyond |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture |