Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:How Might We Request for Comments Architecture Inception Canvas Architecture Communication Canvas

Criterion	Innovation How Might We	Architecture Request for Comments	Architecture Architecture Inception Canvas	Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas
Purposedifferent	With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction.	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.	The Architecture Inception Canvas bundles the first architecture questions into a compact decision picture. It fits when an initiative is still in motion but still needs clear guardrails.	The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	30–45 min	1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung	1-2 h	60-120 min
Participantsdifferent	1-10	3-20 Reviewer	3-8	2-8
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts	RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets	Inception Canvas, Risks, Goal List, Open Questions	Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan
Tagsno overlap	FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions	ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance	AlignmentArchitectureCanvas	ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas

Add more methods