View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Decision Rights MappingArchitecture Inception CanvasRequest for CommentsArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Inception Canvas |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | The Architecture Inception Canvas bundles the first architecture questions into a compact decision picture. It fits when an initiative is still in motion but still needs clear guardrails. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Inception Canvas, Risks, Goal List, Open Questions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | AlignmentArchitectureCanvas | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |