View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making RAPID |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-3 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DecisionRolesGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |