View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Architecture Views and Beyond |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | Views and Beyond organizes architecture into several views so no single diagram has to do everything at once. This makes it possible to choose the representation that fits the stakeholder's question. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 1-4 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |