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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-6 |
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 | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | ChangeDecisionStrategy | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |