View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Business Strategy GAP Analysis |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Strategy Impact Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | GAP Analysis compares the current state with a target picture and makes the distance manageable. It becomes useful when, ahead of new initiatives, it must become clear which capabilities, processes, or resources are missing. | 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. | When a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-3 | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Gap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Impact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery Options | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | StrategyAnalysisPlanning | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |