View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations ALPEN Method |  Product Discovery Pretotyping |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With an overloaded day full of too many tasks, a realistic picture of the day emerges. The method connects estimating, deciding, and buffer thinking so planning fits available energy and time. | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 10-20 min daily | Stunden bis wenige Tage | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 1-4 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Daily Plan, Time Estimates, Review Notes | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | 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 | PlanningTime managementProductivityOperations | ValidationDemandMVP | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |