View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Jobs to Be Done |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Engineering Fault Isolation |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought. | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | In technical failures, the visible symptom often gets mixed up with the actual cause. Fault Isolation narrows the fault space and progressively reduces which part of the system is truly affected. | 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 Wochen | 1-2 Tage | 30-180 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 10-50 | 1-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity List | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Fault Isolation Map, Test Log, Excluded Hypotheses, Narrowed Fault Area | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | CustomerOutcomesNeeds | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | TroubleshootingDiagnosisEngineering | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |