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 MappingSpecification by ExampleArchitecture Decision RecordRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |