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 a team retrospective with three separate Start, Stop, and Continue areas and a shared action list.
Agile
Start Stop Continue
Paper illustration for RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID
Paper illustration for Sailboat Retrospective
Agile
Sailboat Retrospective
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 team wants to deliberately adjust its working behavior, it makes habits visible and assessable. It focuses on concrete changes instead of diffuse mood.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 a team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung30-60 min45-90 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20 Reviewer3-123-124-12
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or ticketsStart Stop Continue Board, Improvement ActionsRAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision LogSailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance
RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection
DecisionRolesGovernance
RetrospectiveTeamImprovement
Add more methods