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 |  Operations After-Action Review |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  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. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. | 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 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 20-45 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | 1-3 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | LearningOperationsImprovement | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |