View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Engineering Kanban |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 15-45 min | Ongoing | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-3 | 2-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | FlowVisual managementDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |