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 Expectation Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Delivery RAID Log |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |