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 Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Delivery Cost of Delay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision |