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 for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Red Teaming method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Red Teaming
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 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.LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail.For strategic decisions with high reach, agreement and gut feeling are often not enough. Red teaming brings deliberate opposition into the situation and tests where a plan breaks under real counterarguments.
Complexitydifferent
MediumMediumMediumHigh
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung1-3 h3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional1-4 h
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer1-81 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people3-8
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleLean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checksChallenge Findings, Risk Register, Mitigation Plan
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
SensemakingDecisionRationale
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
RiskDecisionSensemaking
Add more methods