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 Pre-Mortem |  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. | In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures. | 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 | 20–45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | Small cross-functional group | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | RiskDecisionFailurePlanning | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning |