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 Lightning Decision Jam working structure.
Facilitation
Decision Jam
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
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 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.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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung60-90 min30–60 min45–90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer4-104-83-10
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsTheme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
Add more methods