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 Responsibility Poker |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-3 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |