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 Mind Mapping |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | 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. | 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 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 | 15-45 min | 90-180 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |