View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |