View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |