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 |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  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. | 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 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 15-45 min | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-3 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |