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 |  Delivery Communication Plan |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-6 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Current-state map, Future-state map, Bottleneck list | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Plan, Channel Matrix, Message Cadence | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | LeanFlowWasteDelivery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | CommunicationStakeholdersDeliveryPlanning | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |