methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration for Cynefin Workshop.
Decision Making
Cynefin Workshop
Paper illustration of an IBIS map with issues, positions and arguments
Knowledge Modeling
IBIS
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
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 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.IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung60-180 min1-3 h15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer4-202-81-3
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsCynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking NotesIssue Map, Positions, Argument NotesADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ComplexitySensemakingDecision
RationaleKnowledgeDecision
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods