View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Golden Path |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When teams need a reliable default path for frequent use, sprawl quickly emerges without any guiding logic. Golden Path bundles the preferred path so good practice becomes easy and deviation becomes deliberate. | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage Setup, laufend | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Golden Path Guide, Templates, Quality Checks | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | EngineeringProductivityGovernance | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |