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 ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Operations ALPEN Method |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 10-20 min daily | 1-5 Tage | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1 | Nutzertraffic | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Daily Plan, Time Estimates, Review Notes | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | PlanningTime managementProductivityOperations | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |