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 |  Agile WSJF |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | Ranked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay Assumptions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |