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 Cynefin Workshop |  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. | When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-180 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 4-20 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |