View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Responsibility PokerArchitecture Communication CanvasStakeholder Salience ModelAlignment Mapping
| Criterion |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Alignment 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. | The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-120 min | 60-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-8 | 3-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |