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
Paper board with the four ROAM fields Resolved, Owned, Accepted, and Mitigated.
Agile
ROAM Board
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)
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.When work needs to move between different states or columns, it makes that movement and its handoffs legible. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a ROAM Board and an Owner List.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.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
HighLowMediumHigh
Timedifferent
Mehrere Wochen20-40 min initial, dann laufend3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen
Participantsdifferent
2-6 researchers plus sample3-151 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people4-10
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypothesesROAM Board, Owner ListLean 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 checksProblem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings
Tagsno overlap
OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative
RiskAgileTrackingAlignment
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
InnovationPrototypeResearch
Add more methods