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 |  Operations MORT Analysis |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For a safety-relevant event or a system with high protection requirements, the method examines where controls failed. It exposes both technical and organizational gaps. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 2-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | MORT Worksheets, Findings per Branch, Corrective Actions, Systemic Recommendations | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | Root causeSafetySystemicIncident | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |