View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Operations 5 Whys |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 15-30 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 2-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
