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
Paper radar with five axes, two current and target profiles, and evidence cards beside each dimension.
Decision Making
Radar
Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Purposedifferent
When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do.For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch.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.When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumLowMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h30-90 min15-45 min1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
2-101-61-31-8
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action AreasDecision Tree, Option Map, Assumption ListADR File, Decision Log, RationaleArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale
Tagsno overlap
AssessmentPortfolioCapability
DecisionTreeOptions
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
SensemakingDecisionRationale
Add more methods