View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Product CanvasArchitecture Decision RecordRequest for CommentsArchitecture Communication Canvas
| Criterion |  Product Strategy Product Canvas |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When product goal and feature scope don't yet fit cleanly together, it creates a shared working picture. It connects need, core features, and assumptions into a solid starting point. | 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. | The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Product Canvas, Product Assumptions, Scope Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan |
Tagsno overlap | CanvasDiscoveryScope | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas |