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 Views and Beyond |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Views and Beyond organizes architecture into several views so no single diagram has to do everything at once. This makes it possible to choose the representation that fits the stakeholder's question. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-4 | 4-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |