View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:5-Minuten VC-CheckCard SortingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
| Criterion |  Business Strategy 5-Minuten VC-Check |  UX Research Card Sorting |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The 5-Minute VC Check clarifies opportunities and strategic options at the earliest idea stage. It compares problem quality, customer willingness to pay, alternatives, differentiation, and market potential, and captures the result as a VC-check note, go/sharpen/park decision, and risk list. | When content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 20-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | Based on research question | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | VC-check note, Go/sharpen/park decision, Risk and assumption list, Next validation step | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | StartupValidationCompetition | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |