View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Opportunity InterviewRequest for CommentsDecision Rights MappingArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 90-180 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |