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 Decision Rights Mapping |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Innovation Design Sprint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 4-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 4-10 | 5-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | InnovationPrototypeResearch | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation |