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 C4 Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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 change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | 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 | 1-4 h | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |