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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 h | 15-45 min | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-8 | 1-3 | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |