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 Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale |