View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Request for CommentsAcceptance Criteria WorkshopArchitecture Decision RecordArgument Mapping
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | 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. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 20-40 min pro Story | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 | 1-3 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |