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 |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder 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. | 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. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |