View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 2-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |