Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Architecture Decision Record Problem Interview ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Fake Door Test

Criterion	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Product Discovery Problem Interview	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent	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 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.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	15-45 min	30-60 min je Interview	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	1-3	5-12 Interviews	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods