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 |  Delivery Shape Up |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 15-45 min | Mehrere Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 1-3 | 2-6 researchers plus sample |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative |