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 |  Business Strategy Strategy Execution Loop |  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. | The Strategy Execution Loop helps avoid treating strategy as a one-off document. It makes visible how strategic decisions are turned into objectives, initiatives, operational work, measurement, and learning. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | Initial 3-6 h, then monthly or quarterly reviews | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 5-12 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Execution Loop, Review Cadence, Strategic Learning Log | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ExecutionCadenceLearningGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |