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 |  Delivery Cost of Delay |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | Ongoing | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-8 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | FlowVisual managementDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |