View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 15-45 min | 60-120 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 1-3 | 5-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |