Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Strategy Execution Loop Assumption Surfacing Architecture Decision Record Request for Comments

Criterion	Business Strategy Strategy Execution Loop	Decision Making Assumption Surfacing	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Architecture Request for Comments
Purposedifferent	The Strategy Execution Loop helps avoid treating strategy as a one-off document. It makes visible how strategic decisions are turned into objectives, initiatives, operational work, measurement, and learning.	Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it.	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.
Complexitydifferent	High	Low	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	Initial 3-6 h, then monthly or quarterly reviews	45-90 min	15-45 min	1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung
Participantsdifferent	5-12	2-8	1-3	3-20 Reviewer
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async	Async
Outputdifferent	Execution Loop, Review Cadence, Strategic Learning Log	Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets
Tagsno overlap	ExecutionCadenceLearningGovernance	AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance

Add more methods