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 |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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. | 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 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 3-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ChangeDecisionStrategy | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |