View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture C4 Model |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 1-3 h | 1-4 h | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-8 | 1-5 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |