View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Strategy Value Proposition Canvas |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the value proposition and customer expectation drift apart, it makes fit and mismatch legible. It shows where offering and need don't yet come together. | 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Value Proposition Canvas, Fit Gaps, Hypotheses | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ValueNeedsStrategy | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |