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) |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-2 h | 45-60 min |
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 | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |