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 |  Delivery Shape Up |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-60 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |