View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making DACI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 4-12 | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment |