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 MVPFake Door TestLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | 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 | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |