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 |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  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. | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | FailureResilienceRisk | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |