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 InnovationRequest for CommentsATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Architecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 3-20 Reviewer | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |