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 Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |