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 ThinkingRequest for CommentsARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Architecture Decision Record
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
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Design sheets and interface cards connect to jointly written pseudocode with highlighted unresolved questions.
Architecture
ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
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.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.ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.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
HighMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
4-103-20 ReviewerDesigners, developers as users, and facilitation1-3
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Problem Statement, Prototype, Test LearningsRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsPrioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisionsADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
InnovationPrototypeResearch
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods