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

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Problem Interview	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	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.	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.	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 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	Medium	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	30-60 min je Interview	15-45 min	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	5-12 Interviews	1-3	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async	Async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods