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 Request for Comments |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | FailureResilienceRisk | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |