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 Stakeholder 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 15-45 min | 60–90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 1-3 | 2-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Salience Diagram, Strategy per Class |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentGovernance |