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)Solution Interview Wizard of Oz Test Concierge MVP

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Solution Interview	Product Discovery Wizard of Oz Test	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 a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation.	When a new experience would still be too expensive to automate for real, it simulates the outcome behind the scenes. It checks user reaction and value before the technology disappears.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Medium	High	Medium
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	30-60 min je Interview	2-10 Tage	1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	5-10 Interviews	5-20 Nutzer	3-10 Kunden
Formatsame	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes	Prototype Learnings, Manual Effort Notes, Risk List	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks
Tags1 shared	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ValidationInterviewsPrototype	PrototypeValidationMVP	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery

Add more methods