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 Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |  Delivery Communication Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Ongoing | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | FlowVisual managementDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning |