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 Mad Sad Glad
Agile
Mad Sad Glad
Paper illustration for Sailboat Retrospective
Agile
Sailboat Retrospective
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 a team's or workshop's mood needs to become readable, it structures emotional signals with little setup. It makes strain, relief, and sources of energy tangible.When a team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture.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
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung30-60 min45-90 min15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer3-104-121-3
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsEmotion Board, Themes, Action ItemsSailboat Board, Risks, Improvement ActionsADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
RetrospectiveTeamReflection
RetrospectiveTeamImprovement
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods