View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Business Strategy Strategy Execution Loop |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Initial 3-6 h, then monthly or quarterly reviews | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Execution Loop, Review Cadence, Strategic Learning Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ExecutionCadenceLearningGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |