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 Accountability Ladder |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on. | 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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
