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 RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID
Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping
Paper illustration for Cynefin Workshop.
Decision Making
Cynefin Workshop
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.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.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.When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung45-90 min1-3 h60-180 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer3-121-84-20
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsRAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision LogArgument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision RationaleCynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes
Tags1 shared
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
DecisionRolesGovernance
SensemakingDecisionRationale
ComplexitySensemakingDecision
Add more methods