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 |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions |