View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Team Design Team API |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
