View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Systems Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Systems Mapping arranges elements, relationships, and boundaries so a complex field becomes legible at a glance. The overview stabilizes the overall picture before detail work or steering begins. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-3 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | System Map, Dependencies, Leverage Points | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingMappingBoundariesChange | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ChangeDecisionStrategy | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |