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 RecordStakeholder Salience ModelAlignment Mapping
| Criterion |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-240 min | 15-45 min | 60-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-3 | 3-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |