View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Domain Modeling Context Map |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | 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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Context Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary Notes | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |