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 Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  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 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 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. | 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 | 30-60 min | 60–90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |