View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | 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. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |