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 MoSCoW |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | 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 | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-3 | 1-4 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScopeDecision | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |