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 |  Engineering Kanban |  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 work sits in too many parallel streams, throughput suffers and no one sees the bottlenecks. Kanban makes the flow of work visible and limits overload so a system becomes calmer and more predictable. | 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 | Ongoing | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 2-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | FlowVisual managementDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions |