View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-60 min | 45-60 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-5 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |