View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Value Stream Mapping |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  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. | 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 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |