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 DACI |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 15-45 min | 30-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-3 | 2-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |