View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Kanban |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When work sits in too many parallel streams, throughput suffers and no one sees the bottlenecks. Kanban makes the flow of work visible and limits overload so a system becomes calmer and more predictable. | 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 delivery work dissolves into wait times, handoffs, and hidden effort, Value Stream Mapping makes the actual flow visible. The method exposes bottlenecks, idle time, and feedback loops so lead time and improvement levers become tangible. | 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 | Ongoing | 15-45 min | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-3 | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | FlowVisual managementDelivery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |