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 a two-by-two Ansoff Matrix with four growth directions
Business Strategy
Ansoff Matrix
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Purposedifferent
The Ansoff Matrix organizes growth options by market and product relation. It helps weigh expansion, diversification, and adaptation cleanly against each other.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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung1-3 h15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
2-83-20 Reviewer1-81-3
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Ansoff Matrix, Growth Options, Risk NotesRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
GrowthStrategyMarketPortfolio
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
SensemakingDecisionRationale
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods