View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Strategy Impact Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a goal needs to be connected to several possible paths, it shows chains of impact instead of feature lists. It connects business goal, behavior change, and measures. | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Impact Map, Outcome Hypotheses, Delivery Options | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |