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 C4 Model |  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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | 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 | Medium |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 1-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-5 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
