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 |  Architecture Views and Beyond |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights 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. | Views and Beyond organizes architecture into several views so no single diagram has to do everything at once. This makes it possible to choose the representation that fits the stakeholder's question. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |