methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

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

Criterion
Paper illustration of Outcome-Driven Innovation with its method-specific working model.
Product Discovery
Outcome-Driven Innovation
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Paper illustration of an assumption matrix with prioritized test cards
Decision Making
Assumption Surfacing
Design Thinking as a learning loop: an observation notebook, a focused problem statement, different idea sketches, a cardboard prototype and user-test notes. Feedback leads to new understanding.
Innovation
Design Thinking
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.LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail.Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it.For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service.
Complexitydifferent
HighMediumLowHigh
Timedifferent
Mehrere Wochen3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional45-90 min1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen
Participantsdifferent
2-6 researchers plus sample1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people2-84-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypothesesLean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checksAssumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning PlanProblem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings
Tagsno overlap
OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery
InnovationPrototypeResearch
Add more methods