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)Decision Rights Mapping
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 Decision Rights Mapping with its method-specific working model.
Decision Making
Decision Rights Mapping
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.In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional90-180 min
Participantsdifferent
4-103-20 ReviewerDesigners, developers as users, and facilitation4-12
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
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 revisionsDecision Rights Matrix, Agreement
Tagsno overlap
InnovationPrototypeResearch
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks
DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility
Add more methods