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 for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
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.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45-90 min1-5 Tage15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer2-8Nutzertraffic1-3
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsAnsoff Matrix, Growth Options, Risk NotesInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
GrowthStrategyMarketPortfolio
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods