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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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. | 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 | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 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 List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | OutcomesStrategyBehaviorPlanning | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |