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 Decision Rights Mapping Architecture Decision Record Request for Comments

Criterion	Business Strategy Strategy Execution Loop	Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping	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.	In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement.	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	Medium	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	Initial 3-6 h, then monthly or quarterly reviews	90-180 min	15-45 min	1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung
Participantsdifferent	5-12	4-12	1-3	3-20 Reviewer
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Async	Async
Outputdifferent	Execution Loop, Review Cadence, Strategic Learning Log	Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets
Tags1 shared	ExecutionCadenceLearningGovernance	DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance

Add more methods