View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Process Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots. | 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 organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 90-180 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-3 | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessOperationsImprovement | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |