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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Mehrere Wochen | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | InnovationPrototypeResearch |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
