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 Risk Storming |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-90 min | 45–90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-12 | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |