View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Six Thinking Hats |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a topic gets stuck too quickly in the same thinking mode, Six Thinking Hats deliberately separates the perspectives. This means facts, risks, creativity, and emotional signals get worked through one after another instead of mixed together. | 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. | 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Perspective Notes, Decision Inputs, Action Items | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationOptionsDecision | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |