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 |  Agile ROAM Board |  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 work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List. | 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 | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 1-2 h | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-15 | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ROAM Board, Owner List | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility |