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 |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 5-15 min | 1-3 h | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-20 | 5-30 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |