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 |  Agile NoEstimates |  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 estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | 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 | laufend | 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 | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | EstimationForecastingFlow | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |