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 Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Alignment 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |