View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Goal Question MetricArchitecture Decision RecordStakeholder Salience ModelStakeholder Mapping
| Criterion |  Engineering Goal Question Metric |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify technical problems, hypotheses, and next steps in concrete terms. It breaks a technical problem into testable parts. The result is captured as a GQM table and metric briefs. | 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 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 90-180 min | 15-45 min | 60-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1-3 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | GQM Table, Metric Profiles | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | MetricsMeasurementEngineeringAlignment | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |