View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Architecture Decision RecordHypothesis-Driven TroubleshootingStakeholder Salience ModelStakeholder Mapping
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  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 systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30-240 min | 60-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 1-6 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |