View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Visual Management |  Architecture C4 Model |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With high tempo and many parallel topics, the method makes status, deviations, and priorities visible at a glance. It reduces search effort and prevents what matters from getting lost in daily work. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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 | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Ongoing | 1-4 h | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-20 | 1-5 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Visual Board, Status Indicators, Exception Cues | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | SignalsOperationsVisual management | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |