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 ForecastingValue Stream MappingArchitecture Decision RecordRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  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. | 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 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 | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 4-10 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |