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 |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Knowledge Modeling Teach-back |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. | Teach-back checks whether an explanation actually got through to the other person. The method makes misunderstandings visible early and strengthens shared understanding in advisory and learning situations. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 20-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | Understanding Check, Clarification Notes, Learning Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | LearningUnderstandingCommunication |