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) |  Operations 8D Problem Solving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For an acute quality or delivery problem, the method structures immediate protection and root cause work together. It keeps the situation stable while the actual cause is investigated cleanly. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 15-30 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-6 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 2-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | 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 | 8D Report, Containment Plan, Root Cause Evidence, Corrective Action Plan |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | QualityProblem solvingRoot cause |