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) |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 30-60 min je Interview | 2-8 h | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 5-12 Interviews | 5-12 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + 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 | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |