Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Outcome-Driven Innovation Argument Mapping Decision Rights Mapping Architecture Decision Record

Criterion	Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation	Decision Making Argument Mapping	Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping	Architecture Architecture Decision Record
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.	In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement.	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.
Complexitydifferent	High	Medium	Medium	Low
Timedifferent	Mehrere Wochen	1-3 h	90-180 min	15-45 min
Participantsdifferent	2-6 researchers plus sample	1-8	4-12	1-3
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop	Async
Outputdifferent	Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses	Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale	Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap	OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative	SensemakingDecisionRationale	DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance

Add more methods