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 |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  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. | 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 ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |