View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile ROAM Board |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min initial, dann laufend | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-15 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | ROAM Board, Owner List | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RiskAgileTrackingAlignment | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |