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 Expectation Mapping |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |