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 Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 5-12 Interviews | 1-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |