View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 10-30 min je Item | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |