View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Value Stream MappingArchitecture Decision RecordMonte Carlo ForecastingRequest for Comments
| Criterion |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When delivery work dissolves into wait times, handoffs, and hidden effort, Value Stream Mapping makes the actual flow visible. The method exposes bottlenecks, idle time, and feedback loops so lead time and improvement levers become tangible. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1-3 | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ForecastingFlowDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |