View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 5-12 Interviews | 2-6 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |