View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 4-5 Tage | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 5-8 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |