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 the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Purposedifferent
When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer.When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighMediumLow
Timedifferent
60-90 min1-4 Wochen1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
4-101-63-20 ReviewerNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods