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 illustration of Request for Comments (RFC) with its method-specific working model.
Architecture
Request for Comments
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Paper illustration of the Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Purposedifferent
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.When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer.When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45–90 min30–60 min60-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer3-104-84-10
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
Add more methods