View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Hypothesis-Driven TroubleshootingArchitecture Decision RecordConsensus WorkshopStakeholder Salience Model
| Criterion |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-240 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-3 | 5-30 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |