View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Delivery Cost of Delay |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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. | Helps clarify scope, order, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, constraints, and sequence manageable. The result is captured as a Cost of Delay table and prioritization sequence. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | CoD Table, Prioritization Sequence |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | PrioritizationDeliveryEconomicsDecision |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
