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 MVPARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)Assumption Surfacing
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + 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 | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |