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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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. | 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. | 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 | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-10 | 1-3 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |