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 Request for Comments |  UX Research Surveys |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 3-14 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 3-20 Reviewer | 50+ |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | 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 | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | QuantitativeResearchValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
