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
Paper illustration of a two-by-two Ansoff Matrix with four growth directions
Business Strategy
Ansoff Matrix
Paper illustration of DIBB with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
DIBB
Paper illustration for DACI
Decision Making
DACI
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.The Ansoff Matrix organizes growth options by market and product relation. It helps weigh expansion, diversification, and adaptation cleanly against each other.DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report.In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45-90 min1-2 h30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer2-82-82-10
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsAnsoff Matrix, Growth Options, Risk NotesDIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning reportDACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
GrowthStrategyMarketPortfolio
StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis
DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment
Add more methods