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 Dot Voting |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 5-15 min | 30-60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-20 | 4-12 | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |