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 InnovationATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Stakeholder Salience ModelPower Interest Grid
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | High | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 60-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |