View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | 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 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 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 | 1-2 h | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 1-3 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |