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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 h | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |