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 Problem Interview |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Facilitation Stakeholder Salience Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | When stakeholders appear to matter very differently, the Stakeholder Salience Model rates their actual priority through power, legitimacy, and urgency. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Salience diagram and a class-based strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 1-3 | 4-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |