View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Systems Thinking Current Reality Tree |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | 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. | A Current Reality Tree condenses many symptoms into a few causal chains. The method makes visible which core problems drive several negative effects at once. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 2-6 h | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-8 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Current Reality Tree, Core Problems, Intervention Ideas | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | Systems thinkingRoot causeConstraintsCausality | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |