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 C4 Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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. | The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-4 h | 1-2 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-5 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas |