View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making DACI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | Mehrere Wochen | 15-45 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-3 | 2-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment |