View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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. | 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 |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
