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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Alignment 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. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | 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 | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |