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:Concierge MVP Architecture Decision Record ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Fake Door Test

Criterion	Product Discovery Concierge MVP	Architecture Architecture Decision Record	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Fake Door Test
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.	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.	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 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	Low	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	1-4 Wochen	15-45 min	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	3-10 Kunden	1-3	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks	ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery	ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods