View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Design ThinkingRAID LogOutcome-Driven InnovationATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Delivery RAID Log |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | Mehrere Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-6 researchers plus sample | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |