View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Failure Scenario AnalysisRequest for CommentsArchitecture Decision RecordAssumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |