View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Monte Carlo ForecastingArchitecture Decision RecordValue Stream MappingRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  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 delivery work dissolves into wait times, handoffs, and hidden effort, Value Stream Mapping makes the actual flow visible. The method exposes bottlenecks, idle time, and feedback loops so lead time and improvement levers become tangible. | 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 | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-3 | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |