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 Responsibility Poker |  Decision Making DACI |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-10 | 2-10 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |