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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60–90 min | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |