View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Change Analysis |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a deviation after a change, the method isolates the influence of the altered condition. It narrows down which differences are relevant and which are just accompanying noise. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-120 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Change Matrix, Cause Hypotheses, Validation Questions, Action List | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | ChangeRoot causeTroubleshootingComparison | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |