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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Innovation TRIZ |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | For technical contradictions or trade-offs, the method looks for solutions that resolve opposing requirements at the same time. It translates limits into an explicit picture of conflict that becomes workable. This produces not just compromises but more elegant principles. | When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 1-4 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 | 2-8 | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Contradiction Statement, Inventive Principles, Solution Concepts | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | InnovationProblem solvingContradictionsCreativity | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |