View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile NoEstimates |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making DACI |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 15-45 min | 30-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-3 | 2-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |