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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  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. | 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 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. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-3 h | 60-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-10 | 1-8 | 4-20 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | InnovationPrototypeResearch | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ComplexitySensemakingDecision |