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 ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)A3 Problem Solving Fake Door Test

Criterion	Product Discovery Concierge MVP	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Operations A3 Problem Solving	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.	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 a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together.	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.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	1-4 Wochen	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-90 min	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	3-10 Kunden	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-5	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods