View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped. | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 5-30 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |