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 |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 15-45 min | 60-180 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-3 | 4-20 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | SensemakingDecisionRationale |