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 InnovationRAID LogAssumption SurfacingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Delivery RAID Log |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |