View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Shape Up |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 20-60 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-4 pro Pitch | 1 | 1-3 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |