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 Cost of Delay |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Agile WSJF |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. | 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. | When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-3 | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay Assumptions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |