View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation How Might We |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture C4 Model |  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 C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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 | 1-4 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-5 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas |