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 Decision Rights Mapping |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |