View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |