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
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
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 demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowHigh
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung60-90 min1-5 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer4-10Nutzertraffic1-6
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsProblem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, ExperimentInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning NoteExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
Add more methods