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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |  Delivery Communication Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When many people need to be informed in parallel and messages would otherwise arrive unevenly or too late, a Communication Plan orders communication reliably. Channels, audiences, and cadences interlock so important information doesn't get lost. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning |