View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Working BackwardsRequest for CommentsArchitecture Decision RecordArchitecture Inception Canvas
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Working Backwards |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Architecture Inception Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the target state and benefit need to be clear first, it thinks backward from the desired outcome into the product logic. It sharpens vision, objections, and value proposition before elaboration. | 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. | 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. | The Architecture Inception Canvas bundles the first architecture questions into a compact decision picture. It fits when an initiative is still in motion but still needs clear guardrails. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 4-8 h, mehrere Iterationen | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Future Press Release, FAQ, Vision Statement | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Inception Canvas, Risks, Goal List, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | VisionNarrativeAlignment | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentArchitectureCanvas |