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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Operations After-Action Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessOperationsImprovement | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | LearningOperationsImprovement |