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 CommentsArchitecture Decision RecordATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tags1 shared | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
