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 CommentsLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Assumption 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
Paper illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
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 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.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.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.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 Wochen1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
4-103-20 Reviewer1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Problem Statement, Prototype, Test LearningsRFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsLean 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 checksAssumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan
Tagsno overlap
InnovationPrototypeResearch
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery
Add more methods