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 ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture Risk Storming |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog |
Tags1 shared | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
