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.

Selected:Design ThinkingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Request for CommentsAssumption Surfacing
Criterion
Design Thinking as a learning loop: an observation notebook, a focused problem statement, different idea sketches, a cardboard prototype and user-test notes. Feedback leads to new understanding.
Innovation
Design Thinking
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Paper illustration of an assumption matrix with prioritized test cards
Decision Making
Assumption Surfacing
Purposedifferent
For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service.LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail.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.Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
4-101 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-20 Reviewer2-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Problem Statement, Prototype, Test LearningsLean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checksRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsAssumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan
Tagsno overlap
InnovationPrototypeResearch
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery
Add more methods