In order to extend the conversation Joshua Porter kicked up at bokardo.com on the benefits of activity-centred design and its possible superiority over other design methodologies, I'd like to offer up the following by way of evaluation criteria...
If you would like to proffer up some UX methodology as being superior to any other, then what you're effectively saying is that *any* UX team, working on *any* UX project, will produce a superior result by using that methodology.
In other words, to justify the assertion, you need to agree that the team members and project requirements are inconsequential with respect to the overall quality of the end result.
So now, think of those projects where the methodology has been identified as the key success factor and ask yourself: was it the methodology alone, or the combination of people, tasks, method & the specific requirements of the project all being aligned that made for such a successful end result? My guess is that the methodology is not a sufficient condition for success.
That means for your own team, and project, cast a critical eye over your team and think about the requirements of the project. Then choose the collection of tasks & process that best suits.