View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 90-180 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |