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
A paper-based illustration representing WSJF with its core stages and visible working result.
Agile
WSJF
Paper illustration for RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID
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 many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together.In complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels.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
MediumHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45-90 min45-90 min15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer3-103-121-3
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsRanked Backlog, Cost-of-Delay AssumptionsRAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision LogADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization
DecisionRolesGovernance
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods