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 the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Paper illustration for RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID
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.When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.In complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels.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
MediumMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung1-3 h45-90 min30-60 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer5-303-122-10
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasRAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision LogDACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
DecisionRolesGovernance
DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment
Add more methods