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
A hypothetical failure makes concrete risks, signals, and fitting mitigations visible.
Decision Making
Pre-Mortem
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Purposedifferent
In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures.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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowLowHigh
Timedifferent
20–45 min60-90 min1-5 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
Small cross-functional group4-10Nutzertraffic1-6
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption logProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
RiskDecisionFailurePlanning
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods