methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of Scrum with its method-specific working model.
Agile
Scrum
Paper illustration of Decision Rights Mapping with its method-specific working model.
Decision Making
Decision Rights Mapping
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Paper illustration for Alignment Mapping.
Facilitation
Alignment Mapping
Purposedifferent
When a team needs to work in a fixed delivery rhythm, it stabilizes cadence, responsibility, and feedback loops. It makes collaboration reliable across sprint boundaries.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.In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving.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
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-4 Wochen je Sprint, laufend90-180 min45-90 min1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-10 (Scrum Team)4-123-124-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment, Sprint GoalDecision Rights Matrix, AgreementForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk NotesAlignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions
Tagsno overlap
AgileIterationCadence
DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility
ChangeDecisionStrategy
AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation
Add more methods