View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |