View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | 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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | 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 | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-3 | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |