View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Decision Making Force Field Analysis |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. | In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 3-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Force Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |