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 InnovationLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Request for CommentsAssumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Lean 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 checks | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |