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 Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 2-5 | 1-3 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |