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 |  Delivery RAID Log |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 1-2 h | 30 min Setup, dann laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-15 | 4-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ROAM Board, Owner List | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | RAID Log, Status Report Source |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance |