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 Waste Analysis |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a process that keeps people busy but creates little value, the method exposes waste. It directs attention to unnecessary movement, waiting times, rework, and overdelivery. | 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-120 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Waste Map, Prioritized Waste, Improvement Backlog | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | WasteLeanProcess improvement | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |