methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration for ALPEN Method
Operations
ALPEN Method
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
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.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.With an overloaded day full of too many tasks, a realistic picture of the day emerges. The method connects estimating, deciding, and buffer thinking so planning fits available energy and time.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
MediumLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung15-45 min10-20 min daily1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer1-311-8
Formatdifferent
AsyncAsyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsADR File, Decision Log, RationaleDaily Plan, Time Estimates, Review NotesArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
PlanningTime managementProductivityOperations
SensemakingDecisionRationale
Add more methods