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
Empathy Mapping
UX Research
Empathy Mapping
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Software Architecture Canvas method illustration showing its working structure
Architecture
Software Architecture Canvas
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 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 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.The Software Architecture Canvas reduces a system to the most important architecture decisions, constraints, and interfaces. It is useful when teams need a resilient overall picture quickly.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung30–60 min1-3 h1-2 h
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer4-85-303-10
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsEmpathy Map, Assumptions List, Research GapsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority AreasArchitecture Canvas, Goals, Constraints, Quality Attributes
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
CanvasArchitectureAlignmentWorkshop
Add more methods