View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Shape Up |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Delivery Communication Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | When an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped. | 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 people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 30-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning |