View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Mehrere Wochen | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 1-3 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |