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 C4 Model |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 1-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 1-5 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |